Jollydevil wrote:The piont im trying to put out is that even if half the people buying models using molding instead, Gw would still make a ton of money. Besides, what are the chances of you getting caught? Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

Despite me meeting trolls on forums , despite me getting into arguments with them , i have still never say what im about to say now.

If you really cannot understand the wrong or the harm it is , i have nothing else to say to you. Or rather , i feel i'll be wasting my breath

That example is so wrong btw, you might want to think it over.

Skinnattittar wrote:Now what if I can't operate below their costs? Well then that market isn't business friendly, and that sucks.

And that's exactly why the law exists...

@ Luna : I think you are arguing something different than I am. Just because you make something, doesn't mean you have an inherent right to tell people how to use it or whether or not they can make copies of it on their own for themselves. Not only is that practically (and by that I mean the real meaning of practically, as in, practicability) impossible to do (someone could make a billion Space Marines, keep them in their basement, and no one would be the wiser and GW would be done no harm), but difficult to prove! If I make perfect recasts (hypothetical) of a GW product, I have still remade their model, but there is no way for anyone to prove it, even if I admitted to it!

Next. Just because someone makes something, doesn't mean they were willing to buy it. I have made many models I never intended to use, or painted many models I never intended to use, not because I'm stupid or whatever, but because that's what I wanted to do! So if someone is making recasts, they are more likely doing it because they like the challenge, rather than because it is cheap (it takes a lot of work and investment. I would gamble that if you spent the time recasting working at a job, it would probably make more sense to buy the models).

You also never addressed my other examples, Luna. You side skipped difficult, directly related issues, in favor of.... I'm not really sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Now what if I can't operate below their costs? Well then that market isn't business friendly, and that sucks.

And that's exactly why the law exists...

So I should start a door-to-door home dish washing service for $10 a dish (or five utensils), and if people are washing their own dishes, I should be able to sue them because they are intruding on my business?

Skinnattittar wrote: If I make perfect recasts (hypothetical) of a GW product, I have still remade their model, but there is no way for anyone to prove it, even if I admitted to it!

Is breaking the law any less wrong because you don't think you'll get caught?

Next. Just because someone makes something, doesn't mean they were willing to buy it.

In which case, not being able to recast it shouldn't be a big issue. Remember, we're talking about toy soldiers here. If they don't want it enough to pay for it, they can clearly do without it.

So if someone is making recasts, they are more likely doing it because they like the challenge, rather than because it is cheap

Not the case, from my experience. The recasters I've run across over the years were very definitely doing it because it was cheaper than buying the models new.

Skinnattittar wrote:So I should start a door-to-door home dish washing service for $10 a dish (or five utensils), and if people are washing their own dishes, I should be able to sue them because they are intruding on my business?

If you can find an applicable law that says that people have to use a dishwashing service rather than washing their own dishes, go right ahead.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote: If I make perfect recasts (hypothetical) of a GW product, I have still remade their model, but there is no way for anyone to prove it, even if I admitted to it!

Is breaking the law any less wrong because you don't think you'll get caught?

Technically, in my opinion, you're not breaking the law unless you get caught, so yes. How can you be prosecuted if it can never be proven? In the US, I don't know how the UK does it, you're innocent unless proven guilty. So basically, you don't have to do anything when accused if they can't prove you did it.

Next. Just because someone makes something, doesn't mean they were willing to buy it.

In which case, not being able to recast it shouldn't be a big issue. Remember, we're talking about toy soldiers here. If they don't want it enough to pay for it, they can clearly do without it.

Unless of course your hobby is making perfect copies of things that can already be made. So it wouldn't do you much good to make your own model, because then there is no proof that making a good casting of it could have been done in the first place! I would call the original model the control group in that experiment.

So if someone is making recasts, they are more likely doing it because they like the challenge, rather than because it is cheap

Not the case, from my experience. The recasters I've run across over the years were very definitely doing it because it was cheaper than buying the models new.

Yes, and I do my own work on my car because I say I'm trying to save money. But once you factor in all the costs and the time I spend working on my car, I'm probably lucky to be braking even. So why do I do my own work on my car? Well because I kind of like proving to myself that I can do it, and it can be fun taking a dead machine (or lumps of resin) and making a working vehicle again (or little plastic models).

insaniak wrote:So I should start a door-to-door home dish washing service for $10 a dish (or five utensils), and if people are washing their own dishes, I should be able to sue them because they are intruding on my business?

If you can find an applicable law that says that people have to use a dishwashing service rather than washing their own dishes, go right ahead.

Skinnattittar wrote:... actually ideas ARE what copyrights ARE.

No, sorry, it's not.

If I perfectly recreate the AC-DC album but at 5% slower tempo and start selling it I'm still infringing on their copyright.

Yes, because you're copying their music. Not because you're copying the idea of their music.


Copyright relates to actual things, not ideas.

Ideas are covered by patent law, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Heck, even if I use all their lyrics, with totally different music, and replace a few words, I'm still infringing on their copyright if I start selling their music!

Yes, because you're using the lyrics they wrote.

Now if we're going to argue simple "legality," whether something is legal as opposed to logical and/or moral, remember, things like slavery were once legal. I know, it's a cliche counter but I can't think of anything more recent that has been over turned without directly bringing up Hitler.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, to be honest. What is 'right' is defined by the laws of wherever you live. That's what laws are for.

If you don't agree with a given law, that's up to you. That doesn't make it 'right' to just ignore it. Particularly not if you live in a democratic society where you have the ability to get laws changed.

Jollydevil wrote:oh please. who actually uses conscienses these days?

Oh trust me , this is why i wanted to leave the discussion , because i know it'll end up with this been the bare bones.

Like i said and like you said. The conscience to follow or not follow the law.
Because for you , no one know = legal.
But for me , something is illegal the moment you chose to break the rules.

@ Luna : Actually, yes people do. If I'm using an ancient strain of apples, no one owns it. But when you go to a store 9/10 times you're buying an engineered product, a selectively developed apple or corn or whatever seed. However by owning it you have the option of reproducing it, albeit in a somewhat easier method of simple placing its offspring in the ground, which may or may not have been the producer's intent.

With the car headlight, my example is that you are going to re-manufacture a replacement for your own use to repair a broken product that the original producer supplies. When a company makes a car they factor in the future revenue of maintenance into the price, which consequently effects how many and what kinds of employees they will hire in the future (you don't need mechanics if no-one is going to bring their cars to you to be fixed). So by repairing your headlight you are making people unemployed (in reality, car companies know only a certain percentage of people will be foolish enough to bring their cars to the dealership for repairs, and base their business practices off of that).

They are perfectly applicable examples. If I start a miniature business and make models, I had better make my models cheap enough and of quality enough for people to be willing to buy them from me instead of making their own. In the US, you are not required to buy anything from someone if you want it. If you can make a perfect replication of it on your own, you can do that as long as you don't say if was your idea or profit from it in a business sense (i.e.: selling it or using it to supply services). If people are more willing to only buy one and then copy it or make from scratch their own models that look exactly like mine, but they aren't profiting from it or saying it was their idea, I'm SOL and so are my employees. Why? Either because I suck a business or because the market wasn't condusive to my sort of business. It's why you don't see a door-to-door dish washing service and what not. It's because they're unprofitable ideas! Having an idea does not entitle you to being able to profit from it.

Jollydevil wrote:
Good. Theres no use in argueing this, as im going to stick to my opinion, and you yours.

- Personal attack removed by moderator. Saying it's not a personal attack doesn't actually make it true unless it's actually not a personal attack -

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:oh please. who actually uses conscienses these days?

Oh trust me , this is why i wanted to leave the discussion , because i know it'll end up with this been the bare bones.

Like i said and like you said. The conscience to follow or not follow the law.
Because for you , no one know = legal.
But for me , something is illegal the moment you chose to break the rules.

That was not intended to be a serious comment...

Skinnattittar wrote:They are perfectly applicable examples.

They're really not because, once again, they have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.

Having an idea does not entitle you to being able to profit from it.

No, it doesn't. Creating a product does entitle you to certain protections that are intended to ensure that you have the ability to profit from it, and to ensure that others can't simply take your idea and duplicate it. That's what copyright law is for.

Whether or not it does what it is supposed to do is a matter of some debate. But the idea of copyright law is to encourage people to take their ideas and create new and wonderful things with them. Because allowing everyone else to just copy your product willy-nilly (at least so the theory goes) discourages people from doing that.

insaniak wrote:

IronfrontAlex wrote:If you Re-cast models; primer and paint them how are they able to enforce any jurisdiction?
I mean can you even tell? there would be no evidence

If you're recasting metal models in plastic, it's pretty obvious as soon as someone picks one up that something's not quite right...

Indeed. I do, however, Know a Guy Who Knows a Guy who has found away around that.

That being said, even when Painted, metal still feels like metal and you can tell if the models are not metal, even if they have the correct weight.

So here's an interesting bit that I'd like to throw out there to all of those on a moral high-horse. What's the difference between casting your own models, and Paperhammer? One requires you to actually purchase models, right?

And to all of the guys that think you're gonna do it cheaper in resin, I don't think you quite understand what you're getting in to. I have a resin casting setup at home (I make custom models for friends and use it for other non-wargaming hobbies.) Just the compressor, pressure pot, and all the assorted gear that goes with it (vital if you want to make a decent mold/model at all) ran me damn near 300 bucks. Molds are anywhere near 5 to 20 dollars each to make, depending on the size, and it's all too often that you get a bad mold.

Most of the time, it's just going to be cheaper (not to mention easier!) to buy from GW. There's a few notable stupid exceptions, i.e. Terminators...10 dollars for a plastic army man? C'mon guys.

As far as the legality goes, I've YET to see a law posted in here that says it's illegal to reproduce minis. If you were doing it with intent to sell, yes, that's obviously illegal, but as far as for your own use, I haven't seen anything against it.

Take electronics for example. I build tube guitar amps, and have built several Fender and Marshall clones. There is absolutely nothing illegal about doing so, in fact you can get kits that have all the parts you need to build it!

One other thing, there's been a few times that I've casted parts, for the simple fact that I can't buy them from GW anymore. They really shot themselves in the foot when they removed the option to order bitz and sprues.

This isnt anything to do with moral high-horse.

Its about the rules that says why its illegal ,
and the good reasons to why the rules are made to protect the company in the first place.

ok?

Aramus wrote:One other thing, there's been a few times that I've casted parts, for the simple fact that I can't buy them from GW anymore. They really shot themselves in the foot when they removed the option to order bitz and sprues.

Yes , that is something i hear very often , and sure its a pain . By all means i feel your pain , i do.
But here is why i dont think you should.

What makes us tolerate these high prices? too many reasons , but to list one relevant to this thread ,
a box will very often contain bits , LOTS of left over bits. The bits adds worth to a box , the bits adds possibilities to be re-sold , traded etc etc
all of the possibility help reinforce the price of the box.

If everyone just cast which ever bits they need , there will no longer be a stable ground for people with left over bits to take parts in.

LunaHound wrote:This isnt anything to do with moral high-horse.

Its about the rules that says why its illegal ,
and the good reasons to why the rules are made to protect the company in the first place.

ok?

Aramus wrote:One other thing, there's been a few times that I've casted parts, for the simple fact that I can't buy them from GW anymore. They really shot themselves in the foot when they removed the option to order bitz and sprues.

Yes , that is something i hear very often , and sure its a pain . By all means i feel your pain , i do.
But here is why i dont think you should.

What makes us tolerate these high prices? too many reasons , but to list one relevant to this thread ,
a box will very often contain bits , LOTS of left over bits. The bits adds worth to a box , the bits adds possibilities to be re-sold , traded etc etc
all of the possibility help reinforce the price of the box.

If everyone just cast which ever bits they need , there will no longer be a stable ground for people with left over bits to take parts in.

What rules say it's illegal? Examples please.

I get lots of left over bits when I build other plastic kits for the most part too, and those cost far far lest that many GW kits (not saying that ALL GW kits are overpriced, but there are a few that have a huge WTF factor)

I still don't see your argument as being valid. Noone is going to spend 300 + mold making material + resin + stuff to make mold boxes, ect, just to cast a few bits. And if the parts aren't even being made anymore (the old Eldar special weapons plastic sprue is a good example) what's the catch?

Another example is, say the new Killa Kan set. It comes with ONE grotzooka, when you can take a max of...6 I think? Do you really expect me to buy 6 boxes at 44 bucks each to make 3 models? I'm not saying I'm going to cast them (actually going to scratch build the needed weapons, but buy the Kans, since that kit is oh so sexy) but do you see my point?

Aramus wrote:
I still don't see your argument as being valid. Noone is going to spend 300 + mold making material + resin + stuff to make mold boxes, ect, just to cast a few bits. And if the parts aren't even being made anymore (the old Eldar special weapons plastic sprue is a good example) what's the catch?

Another example is, say the new Killa Kan set. It comes with ONE grotzooka, when you can take a max of...6 I think? Do you really expect me to buy 6 boxes at 44 bucks each to make 3 models? I'm not saying I'm going to cast them (actually going to scratch build the needed weapons, but buy the Kans, since that kit is oh so sexy) but do you see my point?

The catch lets see, every 4 years there is a general update for GW 's products. If every 4 years it makes the OOP items legal to be recast ,
you know , thats like saying your army you have now only have the life expectancy of 4 years , because no one will ever buy your OOP army
when they can just recast it as much as they want , CHEAP. So what happens? your current army suddenly feel very expensive or worthless doesnt it.
Long story short , OOP items are worth "something" because there might be people that still need it , and just the same , there are people that need to get rid of it.

See?

The underlined part , yes everyone know thats an issue , not enough weapons to go around.
However, think of it this way. If ALL the killkan comes with all the weapon option for the 3 , do you honestly believe
GW wouldnt raise the price to like ALOT?

So what options are there?

a) GW includes all the weapon options enough for all , thus raising the price of the box (lol) And link back to what i said about left over bits vs recast . It'll ruin it.
b) GW only include the most effective weapon option currently in the codex (lol)
c) GW makes and mix match some weapon options (like what we have now)
d) GW produce weaponless kits , in a cheaper price , but sell the weapon options separately ( effective , but people said they always welcome bits so they dont mind )
e) Recast anything you want , and imbalance this niche market.
f) Make your own scratch built grotzooka , cast it to your hearts content , WIN! But what if we dont have the skill to scratch build? Well Timmy , now you know why we should
respect a company because hiring artists and designin +producing them costs money too!

I mean , why should GW go through the trouble of :
1) Hiring artists
2) Acquiring machines to produce the products
3) Spend money advertising the product , thus creating a player base for the game to be possible?

And have someone waltz in , take all the 3 things i listed for granted , and recast their own army?

What kind of idiot would spend millions of their own money to help create / pave / nurture a creation , just for the others to steal / reproduce them for $10 ?
No one , thats why we have rules and laws.

Well, my head really, really hurts. Some of the arguments in here are rather...dubious. A lot of these arguments are ones I've seen when people tell me pirating games and movies are OK. One guy downloading a game isn't going to hurt a companies profits, after all! No, but a hundred thousand might. It's not breaking the law if you don't get caught. No, it's still illegal. Just getting away with a crime does not make a crime right. Ask anyone who has, say, been robbed and the criminal never caught.

The way I see it is this; Games Workshop hires the sculpter, gives him the tools and materials, pays hime by the hour for many, many hours of work, where a great deal of the material they provide will end up wasted as either poor sculpts or simply ones they aren't going to use. Then they pay for those scults to be made into proper molds, pay for the materials, pay for them to shipped. You then pay them for the right to use and own that particular model. You do not buy the rights to Space Marine Tactical Squads because you bought a box.

That, I feel, is a key point in these arguments. People feel that buying a product has given them a certain entitlement to that product. Yes, you own those sprues. If you choose you can glue them all into a single giant ball, paint it purple and hurl it off a cliff. Who hasn't felt the urge to that with models on occasion? But you do not have the right to grab every model from the same kit and glue those into a ball and throw them off a cliff. You own the models you have bought, nothing more. Therefore, how have you got a right to copy those models?

They aren't your creation. You did not pay for there development. You do not own the copy right behind them. They are not your intelectual property. You have the right to make some little toy soldiers, paint 'em up and play with them, and you can do those things in anyway you choose. But that's it. Just because you can make stuff, just because you don't want or cannot pay for it doesn't mean it's legally right. Morally, I'll leave up to you.

This arguement is going round in circles.

Does anyone actually mass produce figures by cloning.
Disregarding the legal/moral issues for a moment, it seems a lot more trouble than it is worth.
Also good quality materials don't come cheap.

Personally I couldn't be bottomed as it seems a tedious way of creating an army. By the time you made them you could have saved up and bought the blooming critters anyway.

However some of the comments seem to go too far.
as an example I scratched a Night Gobbo as a marker for the Dwarf Cannon. According to a post above this is breach of copyright because i have styled the figure to fit the set of gobbos i have.

Also I have been scratching a personalised figure for my daughter tpo use with her Wood Elves- a sort of avatar.
I used the hands from the spares in the Wood Elves Battalion set. According to what has been said above this is illegal.
Well if it is TOUGH ! come and sue me GW. But you know what - even their lawyers aren't that pernicious are they? GULP! I hope not

I approve.

I just wonder what will happen to you when you step into a store with them...

I still am amazed at how people believe that it's ok to do something against the law just because they will not get caught. I make no distinction between making a duplicate of a model and stealing someone's wallet. They are both against the law, even if you don't get caught. As well how do the people who know they are doing illegal activities but justify it because "no one" is being "hurt" look at themselves in the mirror. Maybe it was just how I was raised but I am thanking God I still have a conscience, that tells me right from wrong.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
However some of the comments seem to go too far.
as an example I scratched a Night Gobbo as a marker for the Dwarf Cannon. According to a post above this is breach of copyright because i have styled the figure to fit the set of gobbos i have.

Also I have been scratching a personalised figure for my daughter tpo use with her Wood Elves- a sort of avatar.
I used the hands from the spares in the Wood Elves Battalion set. According to what has been said above this is illegal.
Well if it is TOUGH ! come and sue me GW. But you know what - even their lawyers aren't that pernicious are they? GULP! I hope not

Uhhh...pretty sure I mentioned, several times, that you own the models you buy. See; Turning them all into a big ball of plastic, painting it purple and throwing it off a cliff. You have every right to glue Berzerker heads to Night Goblin bodies, but, and this is the important bit, just because you bought the boxes does mean you own Berzerkers or Night Goblins. Just as you can't open every box of these models and glue them together you can't copy them, because all you have bought is the right to models. You can do exactly what you want with the models. Except, you know, re-cast them.

The argument that because you have bought a model gives you the right to re-cast parts of the model is essentially arguing that buying the model has granted you rights to things that you simply don't get. It's like buying a computer game and arguing that, since you own the disc, you can rip out the game engine and use it to make your own game. But since the engines are the IP of another company, you can't.

My post was not in response to yours John
but to several previous comments

referring to the initial question of this thread, that i don't see the point of trying to clone an army

I can see the case for the odd bit or two if required for a conversion if no spares are available. But have not cloned anything myself.
Partrly the problem is getting good quality molds made at home that will produce good quality models. I would have thought it isn't that easy!
However I have no idea if some people do tyry this on.

The intellectual rights are what is under scrutiny as you infer. I get the impression that there is an absolutist view being expressed on the thread, which forbids scratching and use of parts on scratch built models if their arguement is practised.

While accepting that the law is the law and all that, there is a difference both legal and moral, between cloning an odd part or two for personal use, and using bought parts for the use as masters and reproducing them. Whether for oneself of for sale.
I have cloned some parts for my model aircraft builds in the past, though prefer to scratch build. The net effect on the industry is zip. We are talking pennies here.

Ghost in the Darkness wrote:I still am amazed at how people believe that it's ok to do something against the law just because they will not get caught. I make no distinction between making a duplicate of a model and stealing someone's wallet. They are both against the law, even if you don't get caught. As well how do the people who know they are doing illegal activities but justify it because "no one" is being "hurt" look at themselves in the mirror. Maybe it was just how I was raised but I am thanking God I still have a conscience, that tells me right from wrong.

One could argue that in this case, the consumer is simply exercising his power: It's like the justification that many who pirate software will use: If they like it, they will pay for it, OR they may consider the price unreasonable.

If a consumer feels a price is fair and within his means, he will want to compensate the producer for a job well done: In this case, the OP has decided that GW evidently doesn't charge a reasonable amount for its service: I'd argue that they charge far too much for what they sell and take too much advantage of the lack of competition, not to mention blowing their profits on gakky specialist games nobody plays...

Henners91 wrote:not to mention blowing their profits on Lord of the Rings games nobody plays...

Fix'd.

Actually lots of people play LotRs down in L.A.

I too play it sometimes

Well, I just went through a quick brush up on Copyright Infringement in the US and the UK and I consulted a friend of mine who is in Patent Law, and he studied Copyright law, though a long time ago.

Pretty much the synopsis, in relation to our discussion, was this:
The accusing party (GW) has to prove damages. While that is not their only concern, as long as the copier is not distributing the product or claiming it to be their own work (meaning they are not saying that the design of the model is theirs, not the actual copying itself, which IS their work), or using the copies "in the course of business" then there is nothing the accuser can really do.

Essentially, when you buy something, you have the right to make as many copies of it as you like as long as you are not distributing it (for profit or not) or using it to make money/in the course of business (this actually includes charities and non-profits!).

The best that GW could claim is that the copier was hurting their business by not buying models, but I did not see any evidence that this constitutes copyright infringement. I actually read a case about a person who was making poor copies of Beanie Babies. The court ruling was, in much fewer words, that the person could own and posses the copies as long as they weren't distributing them (even as gifts). In that case the copier had to pay damages because they had been selling them, but that the beanie babies they had not yet sold did not have to be paid for.

In the UK, they seem to be having some crack downs on copying, however. Even possessing the equipment to make the copies (I am guessing they mean molds and what not) and the copies themselves can constitute a crime if the authorities can show that you could have distributed them. So making mass copies of movies, but not selling or distributing them, can be considered a crime because you COULD eventually sell them, in the UK.

Skinnattittar wrote:In the UK, they seem to be having some crack downs on copying, however. Even possessing the equipment to make the copies (I am guessing they mean molds and what not) and the copies themselves can constitute a crime if the authorities can show that you could have distributed them. So making mass copies of movies, but not selling or distributing them, can be considered a crime because you COULD eventually sell them, in the UK.

In the UK, they want to make sharp knives illegal and Thoughtcrime is already a reality.

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:In the UK, they seem to be having some crack downs on copying, however. Even possessing the equipment to make the copies (I am guessing they mean molds and what not) and the copies themselves can constitute a crime if the authorities can show that you could have distributed them. So making mass copies of movies, but not selling or distributing them, can be considered a crime because you COULD eventually sell them, in the UK.

In the UK, they want to make sharp knives illegal and Thoughtcrime is already a reality.

How t he heck do they prosecute that?! "Your honor, as you can see in these photos of this man, he is clearly thinking about voting for this anti-government legislation. And in this photo, he is clearing thinking about stealing that apple."

Tbh until someone actually comes out with an example of GW legal dept. going after someone who does this I'd consider it fair game.

Henners91 wrote:Tbh until someone actually comes out with an example of GW legal dept. going after someone who does this I'd consider it fair game.

And even if they did, it wouldn't prove that they are correct and legal. Heck, in the US, winning a case does not even necessarily mean that what happened actually broke any laws or infringed on anything!

Wow..
This has gone beyond the OP and into the realm of legalities and morality..
Thankfully I lack the latter in regards to this hobby so couldn't care less what the OP does.

But.....

Does anyone know the basic cost of a pack of SM tactical squad and then the mark up on that price?

Some people seem to be confused as to what a patent is and what a copyright is; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive but are very different.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
What Is a Copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to say wargame miniatures represent an "intellectual work". Fluff yes, rules yes, miniatures....eh, without being a lawyer, I dunno but my guess is no.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. The term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions.

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything which is made by man and the processes for making the products.


Miniatures would most likely fall under the category of a patent. In the U.S. patents are granted for 20 years and may not be renewed. Which means I can probably copy my chaos dwarf blunderbusses for my own use and be safe for 2 reasons, they're more than 20 years old AND the creator does not make them anymore.
This is one of the reasons why they change their sculpting on miniatures so frequently.

Oddly enough I could only find 3 patents referenced to Games Workshop as assignee and these were for the mold injection process filed in the early 1990's.

Aramus wrote:So here's an interesting bit that I'd like to throw out there to all of those on a moral high-horse. What's the difference between casting your own models, and Paperhammer? One requires you to actually purchase models, right?

And to all of the guys that think you're gonna do it cheaper in resin, I don't think you quite understand what you're getting in to. I have a resin casting setup at home (I make custom models for friends and use it for other non-wargaming hobbies.) Just the compressor, pressure pot, and all the assorted gear that goes with it (vital if you want to make a decent mold/model at all) ran me damn near 300 bucks. Molds are anywhere near 5 to 20 dollars each to make, depending on the size, and it's all too often that you get a bad mold.

Most of the time, it's just going to be cheaper (not to mention easier!) to buy from GW. There's a few notable stupid exceptions, i.e. Terminators...10 dollars for a plastic army man? C'mon guys.

As far as the legality goes, I've YET to see a law posted in here that says it's illegal to reproduce minis. If you were doing it with intent to sell, yes, that's obviously illegal, but as far as for your own use, I haven't seen anything against it.

Take electronics for example. I build tube guitar amps, and have built several Fender and Marshall clones. There is absolutely nothing illegal about doing so, in fact you can get kits that have all the parts you need to build it!

One other thing, there's been a few times that I've casted parts, for the simple fact that I can't buy them from GW anymore. They really shot themselves in the foot when they removed the option to order bitz and sprues.

This isn't a legal site. If you want to read about IP law, start with the stickied post '10 Copyright Myths' which is in the Dakka Discussion forum. You can go from there to the US and UK Copyright sites, and branch out into Patent and Trademark too.

Well, seeing as how all these folks are going to just keep right on doing whatever they want regardless of little details like facts, laws, and survivability of the hobby they supposedly want to participate in....


I vote for this thread to me moved to YMDC so someone with more experience can rip them a new one.


Gentlemen (children?), if you do not understand why casting is wrong, I'm willing to bet you don't have a very good grasp on the concepts of money, finances, business, or investments.

So my advice is to start being a little more conservative with your allowance. When Daddy gives it to you, learn to put half in your piggy bank, and only spend the other half on candy and video games. If you do, after a month or so, you'll have plenty in the piggy to buy another brand new Tactical Squad! Horray! Maybe if you do really really well, you can buy them a Rhino, too!


Seriously. Grow up.

Copying is stealing. Stealing is wrong. If all you see is yourself getting something "free", you are a child. An adult knows that taking anything for free means someone somewhere is loosing something for your benefit. When that someone is the group of people making the very existance of your stolen product worth something, you are actually shooting yourself (AND ALL THE REST OF US) in the foot.

Think.

The rest is easy.

Kilkrazy wrote:This isn't a legal site. If you want to read about IP law, start with the stickied post '10 Copyright Myths' which is in the Dakka Discussion forum. You can go from there to the US and UK Copyright sites, and branch out into Patent and Trademark too.

Well that seems like a silly argument to make. We're talking about the legality of copying models for personal use. One would think law would come into a discussion about legality.

But if we're simply going to stick to moralities.... I would still say copying models is fine for personal use. It's not entirely nice to the original manufacturer, but if you're doing it to save money (if you CAN do it to save a marginal sum), then the manufacturer is most likely charging "too much" in the eyes of the customer, and they would not be willing to afford them anyhow. If you're doing it as your hobby, then that really doesn't effect the manufacturer, as you aren't going to buy models from him for the purposes of your recasting hobby.

Is it 100% kosher right? No. Is it 100% evil wrong? No. Is it +50% kosher? Yeah. Is it -50% evil? Yeah.

I agree there Skinnattittar. To the people screaming "Omg but it's costing GW Money", here is a tip, if they are casting, they wouldn't be buying additional models ANYWAY, so it actually causes GW to lose absolutely nothing.

Except for all the investment they made to create the game and it supporting products, marketing, development, printing, etc.....

I mean really...

I have a friend that pirates movies. He uses the same flawed argument "They charge too much."

Guess what? In a free market, the value of anything is what people will pay for it. Your decision of whether or not it's in your range of affordability is more relevant to your own financial situation than a right or wrong of the seller.

I think movies are overpriced, too. So I go to Movie Trading Company and buy used movies at a huge discount, that are JUST as good as the original. My collection of movies is of infinitely higher quality than his, and came at significantly less trouble. It's also legal, and stimulates the local economy.

If you want GW models and can't afford them, why not use Dakka Swap or Ebay? Just as good, and there's someone somewhere who could use that money, which is why they're selling in the first place.

You don't do business to break even. Those of you who expect GW to do so have an unrealistic idea of how a real economy actually works.

Gwar! wrote:I agree there Skinnattittar. To the people screaming "Omg but it's costing GW Money", here is a tip, if they are casting, they wouldn't be buying additional models ANYWAY, so it actually causes GW to lose absolutely nothing.

Well, technically, they lose money by not making the money those people would have been spending to buy those cast models. But that is only assuming that those models were cast so that the models would not need to be purchased.

That being said! If you did not have any intent on acquiring those models in the first place (i.e.; the acquisition of GW copy models is only coincidental to your choice of models), then GW is not even losing that! Further explanation being, that you would have just used proxies/paperhammer if you had not been casting them!

So even if you are casting GW models firstly for your hobby of casting, but secondary, or even tertiary, reason is so you won't have to buy those models, then technically you are harming GW. But! GW is in the hobby business, whether they like it or not. So they should expect a certain amount of loss due to people not buying their models, paints, and brushes. Really, if they want to claim damages because of people copying their models, there is extensional damages for people not buying their paints, brushes, army transports, etc... Though that would be FAR more difficult to defend.

"Should be able to expect some loss"?

Really?

This is just spiralling out of control.

All business understand that loss occurs, but no one accepts it as a part of a business plan.

Have you ever even stepped foot in the real business world?

I have, and that's why I have a deep and abiding respect for the creators of any product.

Um skinnattittat , i just want to ask what you think of the loooong post i wrote earlier on this page , any comments?

Captain Solon wrote:Ok, I recently aquired some Pink mold paste.

The idea is I'm gonna buy one box of say, taccies and then re-mould them (either unused or just melted sprues)

Now, making thems not the real problem.

My question: I've paid for the plastic I'm using, I've got no intention of selling/giving models so, is it stealing?

Thoughts?

Is this a serious proposition? Can you actually melt the plastic GW use and make something else out of it? I don't think the material works like that unlike metal wihich you can melt and recast as many times as you like. The easiest material for home casting is resin.

Anyway, why do you care? It doesn't matter how many ways you try to fudge the matter, duplicating someone's stuff is copyright violation. It doesn't matter if you make new stuff by melting down their models and recycling materials, it doesn't matter if you choose not to sell the copies, though selling copies in itself is more serious. The fact is the only question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you are using them for official events in which case the problem is recasting and getting away with it. If you were allowed to recycle GW figures and recast from their materials how would you prove it to an official?!?

What you do in your own home is your own business, you can recast or duplicate materials or whatever because no one is going to know or care. These threads come up regularly and people have various schemes to make their actions seems less illegal or at least convince themselves it is legal in some way. Here's the rub, it's usually not legal, no matter how many different ways people try to convince themselves they are making it more legal by melting down GW minis or whatever. The real question is; do you care? When it comes to duplicating stuff like shoulder pads and guns, backpacks (especially for OOP figures that GW have no intention of reproducing) I have no problems. Yes it's probably illegal regardless of arguing "fair use" but I wouldn't sell them or take them down a GW store to play with them so I don't care. People churning out nasty recasts on eBay do annoy me. I see a clear difference between the two.

GeneralRetreat wrote:[stuff]

While you make several good points, we are not talking about physically stealing GW models or not buying them. We are talking about buying GW models and then making copies for yourself. What your friend is doing is not buying the movie at all, but reaping the benefits of it (the entertainment). If miniature copying became a really big corner on GW's market, then they would simply be justified in increasing their prices or to start selling casting supplies of their models (such as molds, presses, vacuum and pressure pots, etc...). It would still technically be permissive to make your own molds and casts, but GW would be working in on that other component of their hobby.

Would it be immoral to make your own custom versions of GW miniatures, not because you want custom models, but because you don't want to buy GW models? It would be having the same effect, but you didn't even buy GW miniatures to begin with and GW is missing out on that! Or, if you bought OTHER company's models instead of GW's and started playing 40k with those with your friends! Or even still, not playing 40k and instead played an entirely different game! OR! Not playing table top war gaming at all and went outside to play! Then the entire gaming hobby would really suffer! Including GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Um skinnattittat , i just want to ask what you think of the loooong post i wrote earlier on this page , any comments?

I am going to have to admit that I didn't respond to it at all because I came to understand that we simply do not agree on how things work or what we are discussing. So I didn't not respond because I felt there was little hope of communicating understanding. Basically, I felt you were saying "nuh-uh! You're totally wrong!" and either refusing to appreciate my point of view, or did not understand how to show me to get to your POV. I do apologize for razzing you about it earlier and then not at least replying to your post explaining why I was not going to respond to your post.

GeneralRetreat wrote:"Should be able to expect some loss"? Really? This is just spiralling out of control.
All business understand that loss occurs, but no one accepts it as a part of a business plan.
Have you ever even stepped foot in the real business world?
I have, and that's why I have a deep and abiding respect for the creators of any product.

Being a one time very small business owner, son of a small business owner, step son to a small business owner, friend to many business owner, employee of a small business and student of business, manager of resources, and many other things, yes, I do understand business. And yes! Businesses accept that they will lose money to a multitude of things! Small and large stores accept that they will lose products to thieves, that people will go elsewhere for their products, or even skip buying them and making them themselves! Can a restaurant claim it is the fault of a family deciding to save money and eating at home? No, that's all part of business. Even mighty Walmart factors five-finger-discounts when they open a store or computate profits.

Skinnattittar wrote:While you make several good points, we are not talking about physically stealing GW models or not buying them. We are talking about buying GW models and then making copies for yourself. What your friend is doing is not buying the movie at all, but reaping the benefits of it (the entertainment). If miniature copying became a really big corner on GW's market, then they would simply be justified in increasing their prices or to start selling casting supplies of their models (such as molds, presses, vacuum and pressure pots, etc...). It would still technically be permissive to make your own molds and casts, but GW would be working in on that other component of their hobby.

This is just.... wow..

Skinnattittar wrote:Would it be immoral to make your own custom versions of GW miniatures, not because you want custom models, but because you don't want to buy GW models? It would be having the same effect, but you didn't even buy GW miniatures to begin with and GW is missing out on that! Or, if you bought OTHER company's models instead of GW's and started playing 40k with those with your friends! Or even still, not playing 40k and instead played an entirely different game! OR! Not playing table top war gaming at all and went outside to play! Then the entire gaming hobby would really suffer! Including GW.

Not allowing recasting helps hold the hobby and the company's integrity on people doing unwanted replicates. They wont worry or care people using other company's model to proxy unless its in the store because
that type of customer is most likely too cheap to purchase much anyways. But hey , the plus side if they are still playing warhammer even with other company's minis , you guys are still helping.
You are helping GW via advertising warhammer as a game worth playing.

Skinnattittar wrote:I am going to have to admit that I didn't respond to it at all because I came to understand that we simply do not agree on how things work or what we are discussing. So I didn't not respond because I felt there was little hope of communicating understanding. Basically, I felt you were saying "nuh-uh! You're totally wrong!" and either refusing to appreciate my point of view

No , i see your point of view , i just cant appreciate people that dance on the legal line back and forth and around it.
I have listed bunch of options and consequences to why recasting can hurt the company , you chose to ignore it and just say "well! the law says it should be ok!" nevermind the consequences!

@ Howard a Treesong : Well you see, that is the issue here. There are many people who do not believe that it is illegal at all as long as it remains for personal use. And from what I have researched, I can not find any legal obstruction to it either. The only way, as I understand it, that it would be copyright violation would be if you used it to reap profit in some way or another or made it publicly available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:[stuff]

This is just.... wow..

See? I can highlight things too! To cover development costs, they are factored into expected sales. If it costs me $100 to develop, distribute, and advertise a model, and $2 (that's a very expensive model to make, if time and materials are $2 each) to make it, and I expect to sell 100 of them within my profit time line, then I would divide the cost by the number to be sold (so $1 a model in development, distribution, and advertisement) and add that to the model cost, then multiply by my profit factor. So, $3 per model in costs, I want to double my money, so $6 per model. Now if sales fall below that, then that was my fault, not the customer's. Unless they were stealing them, that is. Then they weren't customers, however....

LunaHound wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:[stuff]

Not allowing recasting helps hold the hobby and the company's integrity on people doing unwanted replicates. They wont worry or care people using other company's model to proxy unless its in the store because
that type of customer is most likely too cheap to purchase much anyways. But hey , the plus side if they are still playing warhammer even with other company's minis , you guys are still helping.
You are helping GW via advertising warhammer as a game worth playing.

Then GW doesn't have to allow recasts at their stores and events. But that in no way can prevent someone from developing their own models, and it doesn't help GW one bit if they go somewhere else.

The argument I am seeing opposed to casting, as I understand it, is that you would be able to play 40k without buying 40k models, and thus are hurting GW. Now by recasting GW figures, you are "breaking the law/infringing on copyright." However my argument has become that you do not need to buy GW products to play GW games and that as I understand it, copying someone's work that you have already purchased for your own use (and not towards business) is perfectly legal and does not infringe on any sort of copyright laws in the US or UK.

GeneralRetreat wrote:Well, seeing as how all these folks are going to just keep right on doing whatever they want regardless of little details like facts, laws, and survivability of the hobby they supposedly want to participate in....


I vote for this thread to me moved to YMDC so someone with more experience can rip them a new one.


Gentlemen (children?), if you do not understand why casting is wrong, I'm willing to bet you don't have a very good grasp on the concepts of money, finances, business, or investments.

So my advice is to start being a little more conservative with your allowance. When Daddy gives it to you, learn to put half in your piggy bank, and only spend the other half on candy and video games. If you do, after a month or so, you'll have plenty in the piggy to buy another brand new Tactical Squad! Horray! Maybe if you do really really well, you can buy them a Rhino, too!


Seriously. Grow up.

Copying is stealing. Stealing is wrong. If all you see is yourself getting something "free", you are a child. An adult knows that taking anything for free means someone somewhere is loosing something for your benefit. When that someone is the group of people making the very existance of your stolen product worth something, you are actually shooting yourself (AND ALL THE REST OF US) in the foot.

Think.

The rest is easy.

Please re read some of the above posts
How much as a percentage of GW sales is actually being lost to cloning?

The industry is hardly on the point of collapse because of it.

Chibi: The fact that you think there is such a thing as "acceptable" loss amuses me, in a sad way. The argument is not about whether the percentage of loss is or is not acceptable in the first place. You're basically saying "Stealing is fine if they didn't really need it."

Skinnattar: I do not believe that any of your listed business credentials are genuine, given your attitude toward accepted business practices.

Has anyone on here actually tried doing this? I have cast some models of things that I have sculpted and even a few bits like some out of print Milliasaurs and it is a TON of work. It is also quite expensive to buy the mold making material. And let me tell you about the mess it makes. Sweet moses - that stuff gets everywhere and is about impossible to clean up.

To me you just aren't saving any money by buying a box of models and trying to cast them. You would have to cast a gob of models for it to pay for itself. And the quality is going to be quite low until you get good at it - and that is going to take more material, more time, and make an even bigger mess.

I have not been happy at all with any models that I tried to cast using this process - it was pretty much a wast of materials. I did learn a lot from it and now I make my own resin bases and am even thinking about modeling up some terrain.

"Not effective at casting lone weapon bits"

Guys think big k... If casting lone melta gun is allowed , so will it be for all the FW Titans. then what? everyone house hold will have a dozen , then it loses its original "wow!" factor.

Then the real thing people own will be worth only a fraction of its original cost...

I prefer to make my titans our of empty coke bottles, bailing wire and duct tape.

Just thought I'd lighten this thread up with a bit of TSOALR.

LunaHound wrote:
"Not effective at casting lone weapon bits"

Guys think big k... If casting lone melta gun is allowed , so will it be for all the FW Titans. then what? everyone house hold will have a dozen , then it loses its original "wow!" factor.

Then the real thing people own will be worth only a fraction of its original cost...

Ok dude, you're really proven you have NO idea what you're talking about. You can't just make copies of stuff easily, it's not like burning a CD or anything. It requires time, money, and lots of wasted money perfecting the process (as I stated in my other post)

For example, it costs me about 2 dollars to cast a Space Marine sized figure (just using an example), not including a base, or any accessories. That's after I've already spent all of the money on the mold supplies, air compressor, and pressure pot, and everything else (as I stated before, over 300 dollars)

You can buy a tactical squad for 41 dollars, that brings the cost of the minis at roughly 4 dollars each, not counting all of the extra bits and stuff you get. In order to even break even, I would have to save over 300 dollars in casting. That's not even taking into consideration the bad casts, and filling in the inevitable air bubbles, time setting up molds, remaking the molds after they fail, in all it's a huge pain in the ass, and it's just more cost effective for me to buy the damn things in the first place.

And to the guy using a point about DVDs. Dude, you are buying used ones. The movie company is getting 0 dollars from you, period. There's really no difference between what you and your friend are doing, when you add it up in the end. I'll admit, I'll pirate a movie now and again(but I very rarely even watch movies, I don't even own a TV) and if I like the movie, I buy it, usually new.

A more accurate example is if you had a 3D printer that could print out minis at a few cents each, and went and downloaded a CAD file that had the parts for, say a space marine (the numbers are horribly off there too, 3d printing is horrendously expensive, and a pain in the ass to get set up in the first place)


On the examples of the models that CAN be made cheaper than GW sells them, that's their own fault at that point. If I can recreate something in RESIN that is cheaper than what they are doing in PLASTIC, then they are doing it wrong, money wise. I'm going to bring up my previous example of a Terminator squad. Compare the squad to a box of Ork Boyz. More plastic in the Boyz box, more detail in the boyz (IMO), so why does it cost more than double?


And as to the point about casting a Titan, haha, once again, you've never worked with resin. Just the mold making materials ALONE would cost you as much as buying a titan, if not more. After working with resin for a while, I realized that FW stuff is really not that pricey, not as much as I had thought.

Aramus wrote:Ok dude, you're really proven you have NO idea what you're talking about. You can't just make copies of stuff easily, it's not like burning a CD or anything. It requires time, money, and lots of wasted money perfecting the process (as I stated in my other post)

And as to the point about casting a Titan, haha, once again, you've never worked with resin. Just the mold making materials ALONE would cost you as much as buying a titan, if not more. After working with resin for a while, I realized that FW stuff is really not that pricey, not as much as I had thought.

Oh wow haha... no, you dont know what you are talking about.
Do you know where im from? Im from Taiwan . Do you know what countries in the world are best at counterfeiting resin kits?

Bingo , Taiwan and Hong Kong. Just so we are clear on one thing . If i am to cast a forge world titan , i will not be casting them on all
their orignal seperate bits , or interior details. They will be generally assembled in larger proportions first.

So shhh , dont tell me i dont know , cuz i do.

Oh , here is something good for you.
Welcome to the world of asia counterfeiters , where its casted and sold everywhere in asia , where even the locals cannot tell the difference because we are just
SO GOOD AT IT ( sorry thats not something worth bragging about )
http://tw.bid.yahoo.com/tw/25464-category.html?.r=1266877520

I have to remind you of one thing. Just because yourself , or your country doesnt see counterfeits often , or isnt capable of recasting resins effectively
doesnt mean the rest of the world is the same. Hate to say this as my country is guilty of it , but the counterfeiters have been plaguing Japan resin kit companies for
DECADES.

Welcome to asia!

LunaHound wrote:

Aramus wrote:Ok dude, you're really proven you have NO idea what you're talking about. You can't just make copies of stuff easily, it's not like burning a CD or anything. It requires time, money, and lots of wasted money perfecting the process (as I stated in my other post)

And as to the point about casting a Titan, haha, once again, you've never worked with resin. Just the mold making materials ALONE would cost you as much as buying a titan, if not more. After working with resin for a while, I realized that FW stuff is really not that pricey, not as much as I had thought.

Oh wow haha... no, you dont know what you are talking about.
Do you know where im from? Im from Taiwan . Do you know what countries in the world are best at counterfeiting resin kits?

Bingo , Taiwan and Hong Kong. Just so we are clear on one thing . If i am to cast a forge world titan , i will not be casting them on all
their orignal seperate bits , or interior details. They will be generally assembled in larger proportions first.

So shhh , dont tell me i dont know , cuz i do.

Once again, my statement stands. Good luck assembling it and then trying to cast parts. One of the hardest parts when I make my own stuff, is avoiding undercuts, which you would get lots of doing it by the way you just described. But you're also talking about doing it for mass reproduction and selling them. The issue here is making a few bits so you can have a cheaper army, and my point still stands that that doesn't work like that at all.

I thought of a point that is seemingly missed here. It is the concept of making money of another persons work.

I can really appreciate Insaniaks point from a page back. I think that a crafter/artist that spends lots of time and (hopefully) love creating a wonderful model deserves ample payment for the work she/he performs. Whenever I create a piece of music, I really want people to enjoy that music. And I believe that people understand that if they want more of that music sooner, they should give me money so I can spend less time on my janitoring (that I do to pay rent etc) and more time on my music crafting. I imagine the same is very true for crafters of models.

I do however claim that there is a world of difference between an artist recieveing fair salary for her work and a stockholder earning money from other peoples efforts. I would be making a completely different point here if all GWs profits were invested into making better products for the consumers, or if all GWs profits were payed out as a bonus to the people who helped create the wolrd and the models for us consumers. I'd be even happier if all GW consumers were allowed to make yearly votes on what to spend GWs surplus money on. But, as it is GW has been listed on the London exchange since 1994, so stock holders get all the surplus money. That makes me a sad panda :-(

Whenever one person gains money from another persons effort there is something immoral going on. No matter what more or less local, more or less temproary laws say. There is a huge moral difference between a hobbyist playing with a copy of a lovingly crafted model and a stock owner caching in on a profitable quarter: The hobbyist does it because she loves the model.

Aramus wrote:Once again, my statement stands. Good luck assembling it and then trying to cast parts. One of the hardest parts when I make my own stuff, is avoiding undercuts, which you would get lots of doing it by the way you just described. But you're also talking about doing it for mass reproduction and selling them. The issue here is making a few bits so you can have a cheaper army, and my point still stands that that doesn't work like that at all.

Yes because i know perfectly well that keeping the integrity of not allowing recast is one more extra prevention
that will hault the type of people that will dance around the current law while pushing it tiny bit and get away with it.

If you allow recasts of a licensed product ( even for yourself ) and it become a common house hold sight to have
armies of your recasted resin , thats one step closer to be "ok" with secretly purchasing / selling them.

Right now its risky to do so because like people said , it might be obvious and easily caught.

Mellon wrote:I thought of a point that is seemingly missed here. It is the concept of making money of another persons work.

I can really appreciate Insaniaks point from a page back. I think that a crafter/artist that spends lots of time and (hopefully) love creating a wonderful model deserves ample payment for the work she/he performs. Whenever I create a piece of music, I really want people to enjoy that music. And I believe that people understand that if they want more of that music sooner, they should give me money so I can spend less time on my janitoring (that I do to pay rent etc) and more time on my music crafting. I imagine the same is very true for crafters of models.

I asked something similar sort of:

I mean , why should GW go through the trouble of :
1) Hiring artists
2) Acquiring machines to produce the products
3) Spend money advertising the product , thus creating a player base for the game to be possible?

And have someone waltz in , take all the 3 things i listed for granted , and recast their own army?

What kind of idiot would spend millions of their own money to help create / pave / nurture a creation , just for the others to steal / reproduce them for $10 ?
No one , thats why we have rules and laws.

LunaHound wrote:

Aramus wrote:Once again, my statement stands. Good luck assembling it and then trying to cast parts. One of the hardest parts when I make my own stuff, is avoiding undercuts, which you would get lots of doing it by the way you just described. But you're also talking about doing it for mass reproduction and selling them. The issue here is making a few bits so you can have a cheaper army, and my point still stands that that doesn't work like that at all.

Yes because i know perfectly well that keeping the integrity of not allowing recast is one more extra prevention
that will hault the type of people that will dance around the current law while pushing it tiny bit and get away with it.

If you allow recasts of a licensed product ( even for yourself ) and it become a common house hold sight to have
armies of your recasted resin , thats one step closer to be "ok" with secretly purchasing / selling them.

Right now its risky to do so because like people said , it might be obvious and easily caught.

Mellon wrote:I thought of a point that is seemingly missed here. It is the concept of making money of another persons work.

I can really appreciate Insaniaks point from a page back. I think that a crafter/artist that spends lots of time and (hopefully) love creating a wonderful model deserves ample payment for the work she/he performs. Whenever I create a piece of music, I really want people to enjoy that music. And I believe that people understand that if they want more of that music sooner, they should give me money so I can spend less time on my janitoring (that I do to pay rent etc) and more time on my music crafting. I imagine the same is very true for crafters of models.

I asked something similar sort of:

I mean , why should GW go through the trouble of :
1) Hiring artists
2) Acquiring machines to produce the products
3) Spend money advertising the product , thus creating a player base for the game to be possible?

And have someone waltz in , take all the 3 things i listed for granted , and recast their own army?

What kind of idiot would spend millions of their own money to help create / pave / nurture a creation , just for the others to steal / reproduce them for $10 ?
No one , thats why we have rules and laws.

Please quit throwing the word "law" around, when you aren't using it correctly. As was shown earlier in the thread, there IS NO LAW that prevents you from making recasts of your own miniatures, as LONG AS YOU ARE NOT SELLING THEM.

Also, WHAT license? I've never signed any contract with GW upon opening any box of minis, maybe you get different boxes than I do? And you're missing my point, once again, you can't just remake stuff cheaply, it's not the same as pirating movies/music/whatever.

All of this is a smokescreen for people to complain because things are expensive.

Get over it.

Everything is expensive these days. You play a hobby because you choose to. At least be adult enough to support the company that makes it possible. There are much more expensive hobbies out there (like car modding), and much less expensive, like gardening. Pick one you can do reasonably within your means and stop trying to cheat your way elsewhere.

There is a huge difference between buying used DVDs and pirating! I'm buying from a subsidiary industry. I used that as an example to show why it's good to buy from eBay, Warstore, or other discount avenues if you can't afford GW minis at full price. Does my money go directly to the production company? No, but someone bought it before who did give them that money. They are transferring the whole product to the store, then to me, which moves money through the local economy. If they had pirated it, then they are reselling the same product over and over again to make a profit, and that profit is not going to the production company. The point is that even subsidiary commerce benefits the originators so long as it deals in reselling genuine product. Even if you buy from eBay, if you're buying genuine models, you're supporting GW.

Please take some economics and learn all this for yourself, don't just trust me on it.

All of you trying to justify "just for my use" casting; That isn't the problem. It's the capacity for a few of the people who CAN do it to get that bright idea "Hey, if I just sell a few of these to friends, I can go out and buy another kit." "Oh hey, I got this new kit, I can cast it too, but maybe a few more... I've got another kit I want soon..."

It's the snowball effect that piracy has. Looking at one incident makes it seem inconsequential, understanding the consequences as a whole should illustrate to the educated person that it's effect is disasterous on the originators. In this case, it's doubly wrong, because the people you're hurting are the ones making it all possible.

Why don't you just punch your parents right AFTER they give you your allowance? You've already got the money after all, and if they didn't want you to, they would have given you more, right?

GeneralRetreat wrote:All of this is a smokescreen for people to complain because things are expensive.

Get over it.

Everything is expensive these days. You play a hobby because you choose to. At least be adult enough to support the company that makes it possible. There are much more expensive hobbies out there (like car modding), and much less expensive, like gardening. Pick one you can do reasonably within your means and stop trying to cheat your way elsewhere.

There is a huge difference between buying used DVDs and pirating! I'm buying from a subsidiary industry. I used that as an example to show why it's good to buy from eBay, Warstore, or other discount avenues if you can't afford GW minis at full price. Does my money go directly to the production company? No, but someone bought it before who did give them that money. They are transferring the whole product to the store, then to me, which moves money through the local economy. If they had pirated it, then they are reselling the same product over and over again to make a profit, and that profit is not going to the production company. The point is that even subsidiary commerce benefits the originators so long as it deals in reselling genuine product. Even if you buy from eBay, if you're buying genuine models, you're supporting GW.

Please take some economics and learn all this for yourself, don't just trust me on it.

All of you trying to justify "just for my use" casting; That isn't the problem. It's the capacity for a few of the people who CAN do it to get that bright idea "Hey, if I just sell a few of these to friends, I can go out and buy another kit." "Oh hey, I got this new kit, I can cast it too, but maybe a few more... I've got another kit I want soon..."

It's the snowball effect that piracy has. Looking at one incident makes it seem inconsequential, understanding the consequences as a whole should illustrate to the educated person that it's effect is disasterous on the originators. In this case, it's doubly wrong, because the people you're hurting are the ones making it all possible.

Why don't you just punch your parents right AFTER they give you your allowance? You've already got the money after all, and if they didn't want you to, they would have given you more, right?

Thank you! for saying it nicely ( mine was probably hard to understand )
But yes other than him using capacity , ( i used integrity ) i believe
we both are conveying the same thing?

Chibi: The fact that you think there is such a thing as "acceptable" loss amuses me, in a sad way. The argument is not about whether the percentage of loss is or is not acceptable in the first place. You're basically saying "Stealing is fine if they didn't really need it."

(my italics)
It may tickle your funny bone but I am not saying that at all. Partly because I have no idea who doesn't need what.

What I asked was, what percentage is actually being lost, in response to your assertion that the industry will go belly up. As I said earlier, and someone backed up, it is a lot of effort to replicate the models. There is not going to be sufficient copying going on to affect sales.

If there are sweatshops knocking out fakes space marines by the truck load then i will take it all back.

The OP wanted to know if it was feasible to make his new model army- clearly it isn't on all sorts of grounds.
But as in many areas of life, and law, there are aspects that are smeared in terms of what is permissible. Another poster has had a looksee at the legality of cloning parts for personal use and it seems I would be safe on that score IF i was so inclined. apologies forgot poster's moniker and if my interpretation is incorrect.

To reiterate an earlier post, I have cloned some aircraft model parts as it was expedient under the circumstances to do so. The cost involved is in terms of PENNIES
This may send me tumbling down to Hades as I have sinned and not repented. But neither the aftermarket industry nor especially the likes of Airfix are going out of business as a result of such bagatelles.

To copypasta all relevant points on the topic from the earlier exhaustive argument, 'Recasting-the great Debate'......

Orkeosaurus wrote:A person sculpts a model. That model now belongs to the sculptor. To recast their model without their permission is theft, and immoral.

The sculptor sells this model to a corporation, although I maintain that selling it to an individual would confer the same rights. All of the rights regarding this model are given to the corporation; the sculptor keeps none of them. In exchange the sculptor is paid quite handsomely. To recast the model without the corporation's permission is theft, as the sculptor gave his rights to the corporation. Thus, recasting the model now is immoral (and would require you to physically steal the model as well, for what that's worth).

The corporation recasts the model, as is their right to do so. They now have a hundred models. All of these models were made by the corporation, and the corporation owned everything that went into them. The hundred models remain the property of the corporation, recasting them is theft and immoral.

Now, one of these models is sold to a gamer. This seems to be where people disagree on whether or not the model can be recast; the gamer now owns the model, and in most cases they can do whatever they feel like with it. However, in a nation where it is against the law to recast, and the corporation has specifically said they don't want their models to be recasted, it would seem clear that the corporation is not giving the rights to recast the model to the consumer. The catch is that in a nation where the laws don't prohibit recasting for personal use, the player hasn't explicitly agreed that they don't have the rights to recast their property (as by default they can do whatever they like with it), and whether or not Games Workshop's IP policy constitutes an actual agreement on the part of the consumer to not violate that policy seems to get blurry. There's also a matter of respect for the wishes of the parent company, which you may not necessarily be (morally) beholden to.

None of this necessarily applies to the more abstract design of things (based off of concept art or game background), but it is applicable to the concrete form of the sculpture. Whether or not your Galaxy Knights are actually Space Marines is a matter of debate, but not when they're the exact same model.

Manchu wrote:
The issue of morality keeps drifting in and out of the spotlight in this thread (having grown prodigiously since I last visited Dakka), which I think indicates that morality--rather than legality--is the real issue. And that's no surprise. People going about their daily lives do not think primarily in terms of the law when making choices with moral implications. They think intuitively about what seems right or wrong to them. Most people have no moral problem with the recasting of a meltagun but would be repulsed by a recast Leman Russ.

Contrast this with the view (as I have interpreted it) of those who stress the illegality of recasting. They seem to be claiming either:

(1) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then it must be morally wrong in and of itself, i.e., it was wrong before it became illegal and the law accurately identifies it as such

-OR-

(2) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then its very illegality is sufficient to make it wrong.

The first statement is most pertinent because I would guess that people confronted with the second one would immediately disclaim it (although I think they believe it at least in part). In any case, both of the statements are false: morality is not presumptively related to positive law. (I believe someone already brought up the Nuremberg Laws so I won't bother discussing that point in greater detail.) We have the statement "the law is x" but so what? We know that the law can be exercised coercively against us: if we disobey, a government actor may punish us. Again, so what? The question is neither "what is the law?" nor "will I be punished if I violate it?" The question is rather "why should I feel bound in conscience to follow the law?" In other words: setting aside the fact that someone more powerful than me will hurt me if I am disobedient, why should I obey a law?

I think that this thread has demonstrated that not everyone buys into the sanctity of property rights or the Lockean assumptions about how they arise. Some of the people here might further find that they do not agree with the great narrative of American prosperity as a consequence of nearly absolute rights regarding so-called "private" property. They might even be shocked to learn that this concept is not actually an inherent truth about the nature of the universe or even *gasp* an inescapable, practical conclusion about the human condition. And how would they react to the notion that there are theories about justice that do not agree with the Aristotelian "giving to each what he deserves/what is his" notion that underlies our law in the UK and US (like, for example, the early christian notion of justice as peace or John Rawls's idea of justice as fairness)? When you tear down these sorts of assumptions you find a question that is actually worth discussion: what, other than force, binds me to follow the law? If the answer is "nothing" then the question becomes: is the threat of force in the face of disobedience enough to make a law just?

Ketara wrote:If morality is objective, that means it has to exist independant of humanity. Therefore you have to say that if all of humanity engaged in nuclear war tomorrow, and wiped ourselves out, morality would still exist. If a race of crab people evolved in a million years from a radioactive wasteland, they would still be bound by the same morals as us.
Once you take the stance that morals are objective though, you make yourself vulnerable to many questions.

For example. If these morals exist objectively, and independantly of humanity, where are they? Morality has no more physical substance than honour, or dignity. The person who believes they are objective must say they are intangible, immaterial, incorporeal. Often, they'll be linked to God. Because God is supposedly infinite, morals must be too. However, since the God of classical theism is a proven logical impossibility, if you tie your idea of morality to him, your argument for objective morality fails along with him.
Plato attempted to tie morality to his idea of the 'Forms', intangible things that could only be perceived by those of great intelligence. However, he failed at the same question as pretty much all objective morality theories.

The question being, 'If it's intangible, prove it's there'.

Just because morality is subjective does not mean a larger system of morality does not exist. Morality evolves from culture, hence you encounter different opinions on areas of morality across the world. However, globalisation, and the steady amalgamation of most human cultures means that the perceived ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' are becoming closer and closer across the world. This steady process has been increased by the domination of certain cultures. When a specific culture dominates a large area of the world, they impose their ideas of morality on it. For example, the Roman Empire pacified and brought order to the territories under it's control, it imposed a system of laws in order to enforce it's morality. Those moralities slowly began to seep into the conquered areas as the norm.

As such, law is taken a general indicator of a larger system of morality. However, not all laws are necessarily formed with morality in mind, and many people will disagree with the specifics, whilst agreeing with the generalities. The generalities in this case being things like, 'you shouldn't hijack cars, or murder people'. The driver doing an extra 5mph over the speed limit on a clear motorway does not consider himself a criminal, although he technically is. He certainly doesn't consider himself in the same boat as a rapist. He knows the difference between doing something he considers to be morally wrong, and breaking the law. The two are not inextricably linked.

As such, law is a general indicator of the morality of a given culture, but it does not dictate the specifics. Those will vary from person to person, and are subjective. As has been seen in this debate thus far already, in the eyes of some, whilst illegal, personal recasting is seen as morally acceptable. In the view of other people, it makes them a criminal. The fact that there are many different views on both sides should in itself, mean that personal recasting is not accepted as one of the generalities, like killing, rape, and shoplifting (all of which just about everyone here seems to agree are reprehensible activities). It seems to fall more into the category of the specific, like doing 5mph over the speed limit, or protesting in Parliament Square.

This larger framework of morality is not objective in itself, it is still subjective. It is decided by the generally accepted consensus of thought by the overwhelming majority, but is still subject to change. For example, apartheid is now agreed upon as being wrong, but head to South Africa, a hundred years ago, and the general consensus would have been that it was the right thing. No part of the system of morality, be it the larger framework, or the smaller specifics is not subject to change. For example, we have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. Many people now see war as being wrong, and nothing more than mass state sanctioned assassinations. At present, those people are in the minority. In two hundred years, it may be the case that war is seen as barbaric, and morally wrong under any circumstances, as those people in the majority. That's just how the system of morality evolves.

There is no ultimate right or wrong. If you disagree with the generalities of morality, and go around killing people in Los Angeles, the fact is, the majority of people disagree with you, and will enforce their belief on you(in this case, that murderers deserve state execution). What gives them the right to make that decision regarding you? The fact that there are more of them, and they're capable of doing it.

Ketara wrote:95% of the time, recasting is clearly wrong. Recasting for sale, recasting entire kits, and even recasting single models is wrong, in my book, as that does take money away from the hardworking sculptors who made it.

However I think that recasting difficult to acquire OOP components is fine. Note the term 'difficult to acquire'. So if you want to recast Mordians, I'd be against that, as those are easily picked up on Ebay with a little patience. However, if you wanted multiple copies gun shield from the old style heavy bolter, I don;t see anything wrong with that.

I also think that it's alright for bitz that it's impractical to acquire by any other means. One user suggested the 'beaky' marine helmets. These are only distributed one per box. If I want to do an army around them, I'd have to buy something like 50 boxes which is absurd. As it can be impossible to acquire that number of them from ebay or bitz sites(which often don't stock what you need), I think you'd be justified in recasting them.

It's true that in the latter example, you're depriving GW of the cost of your 50 boxes of marines, but to be honest, you'd never buy those 50 boxes anyway. You'd ust end up having to make do with regular marines. So in a situation such as that, I don't think anyone loses out really anyway. It might be technically illegal, but I believe that in a situation like that it would be morally acceptable, and branding someone who did it a thief is a way over the top reaction.

And chapterhouse, whilst you may or may not be legally above the law to do it( I still have my doubts, but I'm willing to take you assurance on it-I'm actually all in favour of you guys by the way), the fact is, your business came about as a result of the universe that GW writers and creators invented. You didn't invent the Salamander chapter. Someone else did. However, you are making money off of the Salamanders name, even though you played no part in their creation. And whilst you could call them the Salemanders or something, the fact and truth remains that you are running a business using a fictional world you had no part in designing.

Skinnattittar wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote: If I make perfect recasts (hypothetical) of a GW product, I have still remade their model, but there is no way for anyone to prove it, even if I admitted to it!

Is breaking the law any less wrong because you don't think you'll get caught?

Technically, in my opinion, you're not breaking the law unless you get caught, so yes. How can you be prosecuted if it can never be proven? In the US, I don't know how the UK does it, you're innocent unless proven guilty. So basically, you don't have to do anything when accused if they can't prove you did it.

Normally I read a thread to the end before posting but this really deserved a resounding;

Oh.....My.....God!

This is something I would expect coming out of the mouth of a camo-clad longbearded guy from Montana muttering incoherent slogans about freedom while talking to God on a CB radio, not from a seemingly normal person on a forum dedicated to plastic soldiers.

Well... thats what it is to be human i guess :'/

This is a point that needs to be said Aramus what do you do for a living?

It's not strictly speaking copyright violation, it is actually IP theft which is a whole different ball game.

If my memory serves me GW tend to stamp down on this sort of thing so hard you wouldn't believe.

I know of them buying complete companies for merely hinting at GW IP.

So on the subject of copying GW models the I wouldn't even go there as the GW are not know for there generosity on this issue.

GeneralRetreat wrote:Skinnattar: I do not believe that any of your listed business credentials are genuine, given your attitude toward accepted business practices.

Well then I don't accept that you even know english. Of all the people spewing gibberish, one of them is bound to make coherent looking sentences. See? I can make stupid assertions as well!

Fact: Your clients/customers will try to squeeze every penny they think they can out of you. Even if that means stealing or taking advantage of you.
Fact: Your employees will try and get as much pay from you as they think they can get away with. Even if that means stealing.
Fact: You competitors are going to try and take as much business away from you and sabotage your efforts. Even if that means stealing.
Fact: Trying to stop your clients/customers, employees, and competitors from taking you for every cent you're worth and stealing from you will cost you time and money.

If you can't accept that those are general facts, then I would never want to work for you in a competitive business, because you're going to go under and I'll be looking for a job.

So given those facts, as a business, you have to compute how much it would cost you to reduce those losses and how much it will save you. There will be a balance and a level of risk. Where it is not monetarily prudent to recover your losses, that is acceptable loss. It's basic business. How that applies to this? Well, GW knows a certain amount of their stock is either going to be stolen, discounted, fraudulently acquired (reporting warped sprues that aren't actually warped, for instance), or not sold because of people making stand-ins.

Now I am not going to say that stealing because the business expects to lose some of their stock is morally acceptable behavior. But if you want to argue that businesses don't consider acceptable losses, well, you're welcome to PM me about it, but I would rather not get MORE off topic than I just did.

All of this is a smokescreen for people to complain because things are expensive. Get over it.

This, fellow Dakaites, is called arrogance. Knowing what other people are thinking because you already have made a judgment before even knowing the facts.

WARNING TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE BORED WITH MINUTIAE! The following paragraph is rather boring and ranty Read at your own risk!

I have attempted casting in the past. Not only because I wanted to spare a few bucks, but also because I wanted to see if I could. I used a GW miniature (Steel Legion Plasma Gunner), not just because I didn't want to pay the $12-$16 or whatever it was for the Plasma Gunner and a Grenade Launcher, but because I wanted to see if I could even do it with something that I knew could be cast. Why? Well eventually I planned on making my own variants of GW products. Female Cadians, Adeptus Mechanicus troopers, Servitors (which didn't exist back then), and now I would like to make my own Psykers (I hate the GW supplied ones, and I need at least twenty-seven of them). I do not endeavor to make millions of Cadians, or hundreds of Steel Legionnaires. I have been buying those from other players at my store. Why? It is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier, even if many of them are horribly mangled, poorly painted, badly glued, etc.... Casting is a complex process that doesn't even guarentee acceptable results if you're not experienced (or in my case, teaching myself). With most people I know who do castings, it is for similar reasons, or because GW no longer supplies the models and finding them is difficult and cost prohibitive, and then they wouldn't get the pleasure of trying something new and different.

RETURN TO READING FOR PERTINENT INFORMATION!

LunaHound wrote:Guys think big k... If casting lone melta gun is allowed , so will it be for all the FW Titans. then what? everyone house hold will have a dozen , then it loses its original "wow!" factor.
Then the real thing people own will be worth only a fraction of its original cost...

So you're saying recasting is wrong because it will make things that aren't really that impressive, except that you consider them rare, boring? Man that's a weak argument.... Even though they made, litterally, tens of millions of VW Beetles, I still turn my head when I see one. Even though I have carried an M16 for YEARS, been around all sorts of tanks, trucks, artillery, fighter craft, etc... I still get excited to see one, even the common M16A2, I still check them out whenever I get a chance (and I know every facet of those puppies inside and out!). Even though I have seen and done some scary and interesting stuff, have friends and family who have done even more insane things under fire, I still like hearing the stories, even from the Quarter Masters about their problems with ordering common items like socks or the minutiae about making sure to have the right form filled out when ordering equipment parts. Why? Because I love these things! I love seeing Titans! Even the crappy Armorcast ones! They're interesting, each one a little different, etc... etc... If you can't appreciate the little things, then my friend, you are in the wrong hobby.

EDIT: I TAKE THAT BACK. NOW YOU CAN RETURN TO READING!

Steelmage99 wrote:Normally I read a thread to the end before posting but this really deserved a resounding;
Oh.....My.....God!
This is something I would expect coming out of the mouth of a camo-clad longbearded guy from Montana muttering incoherent slogans about freedom while talking to God on a CB radio, not from a seemingly normal person on a forum dedicated to plastic soldiers.

I was more trying to comment on civil rights and the impracticability of enforcing recasting prohibitions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Justicar Alaric : Actually, to steal Intelectual Property you have to (a) profit from the theft, like by not buying it, and we have said several times that you should at least buy the original models, and (b) you plan to profit by distributing it, including non-profit or charity work. You can also violate Intellectual Property by claiming someone else's work is your own, which is not being claimed to be done or argued, so that one is a flop.

Since this is more of an ethics issiue I feel it is first nessasay to say that your morales are your own. Legaly speaking it is a copywrite violation, not a huge crime, but still punishable. I'd sugest keeping the production small to avoid reprecussions.

The IP involved with this is not in the profit but the stealing of the very design of the models themselves which are held as part of GW's IP.

They hold the rights to all aspects of the design so by manufacturing your own you are stealing the idea of the model.

By calling the model you produced a space marine for example you are stealing the idea of a space marine and applying it to a non GW model which is the whole point of GW protecting their products under this law.

The point is not the model but the concept which is the IP in question.

This is all getting a little heated, so I think it's time to give it a rest...