Janthkin wrote:

And I still don't see how an appropriate response to a business decision is to deliberately break the law. Maybe, if GW has treated you so poorly, what you ought to do is get out of the hobby. Model trains are nice, and they've got a number of standardized gauges available.

Again, try to learn to read objectively. A discussion of some action and the possible motivations behind it is not an endorsement.

And the "if you don't like it get out" defense is about as weak as they come. Seriously that the best you got? If and when the value of playing GW games is outweighed by the enjoyment I get from them, then believe me I will indeed get out, until then I will play and discuss them here and elsewhere just as you are doing...

Thinking about the health of GW as a company and recasting also got me to thinking about something else.

Maybe if recasters can destabilize GW as a company they will sell their IPs (40k, Fantasy) to other companies. Not just modeling companies, but game companies. Those game companies will probably stick to the basic GW formula but they would definitely be giving us rules that are written and updated to a much better quality.

CT GAMER wrote:
Loyal; customers usually wouldn't go the recasting route becasue they would WANT to support the company...

I think you are missing out on over half of the posters in this thread.

They dont even think recasting is hurting anyone , lets not even go that far to mention supporting GW...

Darknight wrote:
You are giving a very good impression of being someone who DOES think it is okay, in certain circumstances, to break the law when a company has "scammed you".

That is your assumption. I can't control nor be bothered by what you assume.

Those game companies will probably stick to the basic GW formula but they would definitely be giving us rules that are written and updated to a much better quality.

Baring the subjective nature of "better quality", I would question this. Other companies are simply not as successful as GW because of the strengths of GW. I would argue one of those strengths is the quality of the rules and miniatures.

And are we seriously reduced to attempting to justify criminal behavior because it MIGHT end up with a better product for us? Fails the first of the moral principles - try again.

LunaHound wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
Loyal; customers usually wouldn't go the recasting route becasue they would WANT to support the company...

I think you are missing out on over half of the posters in this thread.

They dont even think recasting is hurting anyone , lets not even go that far to mention supporting GW...

I would argue that anyone arguing for the right to recast are Not "loyal" customers anymore and any public statement claiming ignorance of hurt on there part is for self-benefit as much as anything.

I can't control nor be bothered by what you assume.

No, but you could attempt to make yourself a little clearer. Just so we are clear, please confirm - it seems as if you are agreeing with me that the actions of those who would seek revenge recasting is reprehensible and wrong, and you in no way endorse it, and you broadly agree with my statements for why these people are wrong?

And, obviously, that your entire argument presented for revenge recasting is one you reject?

Darknight wrote:

Those game companies will probably stick to the basic GW formula but they would definitely be giving us rules that are written and updated to a much better quality.

Baring the subjective nature of "better quality", I would question this. Other companies are simply not as successful as GW because of the strengths of GW. I would argue one of those strengths is the quality of the rules and miniatures.

And are we seriously reduced to attempting to justify criminal behavior because it MIGHT end up with a better product for us? Fails the first of the moral principles - try again.

Dar knight "we" aren't doing anything. I am suggesting the product we consume might do better under the management of a different entity. As far as moral principles go, it fails the first of your moral principles. Morals are subjective, roll again sir.

Morals are subjective, roll again sir.

Something I disagree with. Are you saying that there is absolutely no absolute morality?

CT GAMER wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

And I still don't see how an appropriate response to a business decision is to deliberately break the law. Maybe, if GW has treated you so poorly, what you ought to do is get out of the hobby. Model trains are nice, and they've got a number of standardized gauges available.

Again, try to learn to read objectively. A discussion of some action and the possible motivations behind it is not an endorsement.

CT GAMER also wrote:Yeah Well I have a plan as well, and it involves never again feeling bad about cutting corners when it comes to getting my GW projects in order...

When GW wants to refund me my $600 US or so for the LATD that they "planned" to discontinue I'll be more then happy to spend it on new GW product as opposed to casting supplies...

Aint business grand...

CT GAMER again wrote:Of the people I have known that have done any serious levels of recasting they have been people that have gotten burned by dropped armies, etc.

Doesnt make it right, but I can see how anger leads some people to do it...

Asking for a little respect from a company isn't all that crazy is it? Really?

There is, indeed, a line between understanding a position and endorsement of it. A comprehensive reading of your posts led me to believe you were suggesting more than mere understanding; I hope you can see how your posts, read objectively, might not present precisely the perspective you have in your head.

And the "if you don't like it get out" defense is about as weak as they come. Seriously that the best you got? If and when the value of playing GW games is outweighed by the enjoyment I get from them, then believe me I will indeed get out, until then I will play and discuss them here and elsewhere just as you are doing...

You're taking the wrong message from my suggestion. Few things in a gaming system like 40k are static. If that fundamental truth so disturbs your eqiulibrium ("your" used in the generic here) as to cause you to break the law for some sort of revenge, then your mental health might be better served in a hobby with a little more permanence to it.

Anybody who was willing to collect and play a LatD army has to have known about the Squats.

Darknight wrote:

Morals are subjective, roll again sir.

Something I disagree with. Are you saying that there is absolutely no absolute morality?

The dark side is strong with you

Darknight wrote:

I can't control nor be bothered by what you assume.

No, but you could attempt to make yourself a little clearer. Just so we are clear, please confirm - it seems as if you are agreeing with me that the actions of those who would seek revenge recasting is reprehensible and wrong, and you in no way endorse it, and you broadly agree with my statements for why these people are wrong?

And, obviously, that your entire argument presented for revenge recasting is one you reject?

I wouldn't do it myself per se, but nor would I/do I lose any sleep over people doing it for those reasons.

GW is a cruel mistress.

maybe she should put some effort into better customer relations and treatment is my main point. Seems like if she did some of these peripheral issues would lessen.

Treat people like crap and expect that some of those individuals will learn from your example and return favor (right or wrong).

@ Typeline :

Answer the question, please. Don't just avoid it. The existence of objective truth is a basic thing which can be simply proved - as Obi-Wan's statment of "only a Sith deals in absolutes" neatly shows.

If morality is not objective, then there is nothing which anyone can say is wrong. Not murder, not rape, not jaywalking or re-casting miniatues. These are extreme examples, but they are ones which gain consensus. We all think murder is wrong - but serial killers obviously don't. So, who is right? Is murder actually wrong? Objectively so?

I know people will dislike me for this, but the fact remains is that this is a debate about morality (at least in part) and significant numbers of people are saying "morality is subjective, therefore if I think it is okay to re-cast miniatures it is okay to re-cast miniatures". Someone pointed out this could be used to justify anything.

So, can someone who thinks there is no objective morality, that it is all subjective, tell me the difference between the moral thinking which leads people to say "I think re-casting minis is okay, so it is okay" and "I think murder is okay, so it is okay."

Note that I am NOT saying murder = recasting minis, but rather that the thought process leading to both conclusions is the same. One is obviously far, far, far worse than the other (even assuming recasting is wrong) but the logic used to justify recasting because "I think it is fine" can be used to justify anything.

This is faulty thinking, and is a very dangerous thing, as I am sure we can all see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Treat people like crap and expect that some of those individuals will learn from your example and return favor (right or wrong).

You didn't answer my question either

But no matter. I would contend that "these people" would do such a thing (who might, for example, choose to spend the money they spend on a LATD army on recasting equipment rather than new models) and recast have absolutely no justification doing so. It is theft, plain and simple. And theft of a non necessary item is morally wrong. These people might justify it, but the justification is very weak indeed.

Dar Knight, everything is painted in shades of gray. As much as you'd like me to simply say yes or no, I can't.

The serial killer may think he was freeing the souls of tortured men. The rapist may feel that the women he raped were whores who deserved their punishment he was delivering on behalf of God. Leviticus felt that shell fish and homosexuals were abominations to God. The thief may believe he has no other way to feed his family except to steal it.

But we each prescribe to our own moral codes. I believe killing is wrong, rape is wrong and that God probably doesn't believe everything Leviticus wrote down. And if given a chance I'd like to help that thief out, pass him a loaf of bread every now and then.

Darknight wrote:This is faulty thinking, and is a very dangerous thing, as I am sure we can all see.

So is a belief that there is a single set absolute moral stance.

I hope you misunderstood my question, Typeline.

My question was NOT "do some people think murder is okay?" but rather "given that some people think murder is okay, is it okay?"

If the serial killer justifies killing in his own mind, is he allowed to do so?

And, if not, why is the recaster allowed to justify recasting in his own mind and then do it?

Again (because someone will jump on me if I don't!) I am NOT saying murder = recasting, but rather that if we allow the argument "I think recasting is okay therefore it is" why can we not allow the argument "I think murder is okay, therefore it is"?

So is a belief that there is a single set absolute moral stance.

Why? It is, at least, consistent. It is the foundation for every single fair justice system ("blind justice" etc.) I say "murder of an innocent is always wrong". If you reject an absolutist moral stance, it would seem you are saying "There are times when murder of an innocent is okay". This is why I said I hope you misunderstood the question.

PS. Don't look now, but you just made an absolute statement. You said my absolute stance is dangerous without qualifying it by saying "usually". See how the NECESSITY for objective truth catches us all?

Darknight wrote:
Why? It is, at least, consistent. It is the foundation for every single fair justice system ("blind justice" etc.) I say "murder of an innocent is always wrong". If you reject an absolutist moral stance, it would seem you are saying "There are times when murder of an innocent is okay". This is why I said I hope you misunderstood the question.

Innocent men have been put to death. It is okay in the eyes of people who believed him guilty. Justice was never blind, just feigning. Maybe occasionally murder of an innocent man is okay. Maybe if he dies, many more will live. Although I'd hate for it to be that way, personally. America as a nation prescribes to this ideal, we send our young men and women of the military off to die for our ideals so that we may live in such a nation as this.

If one believes the majority of people in America are American conservatives than the majority thinks that the death penalty is right and just. But on the other side innocent men are put to death in the system. And the liberal Americans, although in the minority in this debate, believe that the death penalty is morally wrong and have had is abolished in many places.

Darknight wrote:PS. Don't look now, but you just made an absolute statement. You said my absolute stance is dangerous without qualifying it by saying "usually". See how the NECESSITY for objective truth catches us all?

You may have gotten me a little there, but it's dangerous because your using your moral guidelines for everyone.

I think even those that recast know that it is "wrong" as dictated by society, hence you don't see people rushing to admit they do it in this thread.

However accepting that something is deemed "socially wrong" and really perceiving and accepting the universal moral wrong of something are two different things.

If someone knows that recasting potentially hurts faceless (to them) GW but doesn't not value/resepct GW as an entity( for whatever reason) then in there mind they do not see this as a wrong or a moral blunder, since they perceive GW as having acted immorally towards them first....

Revenge may not be a valid justification for an action but it certainly justifies actions for a lot of people...

Typeline wrote:Innocent men have been put to death. It is okay in the eyes of people who believed him guilty.

But is it ACTUALLY just and right and okay? Answer me THAT!

Everything you write simply shows to me you didn't UNDERSTAND the question.

The question is not do people THINK it is okay, but IS is okay?

Is the putting to death of an innocent man for no reason right and good? Is murder okay if someone says it is?

You may have gotten me a little there, but it's dangerous because your using your moral guidelines for everyone.

I got you there A LOT. You got pwned.

And how is using THE objective moral quidelines for everyone wrong? If it is morally objectionable to do something, how is it dangerous to tell people that is morally wrong?

Recasting is too much work IMO. If I want to get something for free I'll download it, because that's easy. Get back to me when 3D printers become practical and affordable for the average home user. THEN maybe I'll take up "recasting".

As for absolute vs relative morality: I guess I'd be with the amoral/moral nihilist crowd.

Morals, like cooperative society itself, are born from weakness. Individual humans are forced to make compromises with other humans for their own survival and benefit, because we oftentimes can't do everything effectively/efficiently.

Entities that do not face such limitations, with infinite or nigh-infinite lifespans and power, have no use for morality as they have no need to compromise with others to sustain their existence. For such a being plucking the Earth into the Sun is about as significant as putting some of that anti-Microbial goo on your hands.

After all, you do consider yourself to be an evil mass murderer when you wipe out millions of bacteria on your hands, don't you?

No? I thought not.

So much for absolute morality.

The subjectivity of morality is subjective.

Noble713 wrote:So much for absolute morality.

That is hardly a reasonable argument, because it fails to take into account the differences between microbes and humans and other lifeforms.

Although your post DOES highlight a very important issue; without a belief in a creator deity who somehow made humans special, there is no logical argument for morality. People find it uncomfortable when this is presented to them - because atheists are generally speaking decent people who do not murder, and generally consider murder to be "wrong". You, Noble713, reject the idea of "made in the image of God" and hence morality becomes completely survivalistic to you.

I disagree completely with your conclusion, but I cannot fault the logical steps you have taken to arrive at it. What I reject is your first premise, which is something totally outside the realm of this debate.

Noble is the sort of man who would recast if i) he could get away with it and ii) it was worth his time. He is (or at least gives the impression of) not encumbered by any of the holdover moral issues which bind most atheists. It is a very pure moral stance, identical to mine a few years ago, and I respect it greatly for its intellectual rigor. Noble713 is the kind of man who would destroy the universe if it was in his interests to do so - or at least claims to be. It is an incorrect stance, but the logic is superb when based on the original premise.

Darknight wrote:

Typeline wrote:Innocent men have been put to death. It is okay in the eyes of people who believed him guilty.

But is it ACTUALLY just and right and okay? Answer me THAT!

Everything you write simply shows to me you didn't UNDERSTAND the question.

The question is not do people THINK it is okay, but IS is okay?

Is the putting to death of an innocent man for no reason right and good? Is murder okay if someone says it is?

Listen, everything your saying is showing me that your stuck in the third grade. You need to get out of the definable. Morality is defined by each individual. Some people think it is ok, some people think it is not.

There is no clear definitive answer to this for you. Our moralities are not definable and change over time. Today I don't think it's right to kill a man for no reason, but tomorrow a nuclear war breaks out and a couple months down the road I might be killing my next door neighbor for his canned food.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The subjectivity of morality is subjective.

And hence the objectivity of morality is objective. The statement "there is no objective truth" is an objective statement. At the very least, there is an objective truth in that there is no object truth but that.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The subjectivity of morality is subjective.

Wait wha-

Typeline wrote:Today I don't think it's right to kill a man for no reason, but tomorrow a nuclear war breaks out and a couple months down the road I might be killing my next door neighbor for his canned food.

I was right - you don't understand the question. Is there anyone who does?

The question is not "do people think?" but "is there?" And if you mean, by your constant refusal to actually answer the question, there really IS no objective morality, then can you please tell me why it would be wrong to do anything if I thought it was okay? Could you reasonably say "This is wrong and unfair!"

At which stage, why did you seem to complain about innocent men being killed? Surely that is okay if there is no objective morality?

WARNING! Childish response ahead! WARNING!

Listen, everything your saying is showing me that your stuck in the third grade.

In the third grade, I'd learned to use the apostophe. And, in all seriousness, there is no need to be insulting. You have comprehensively failed to answer a very simple question - I suspect because you do not understand it. Insulting my comprehension and education is not a good plan in that situation.

Darknight wrote:

Typeline wrote:Today I don't think it's right to kill a man for no reason, but tomorrow a nuclear war breaks out and a couple months down the road I might be killing my next door neighbor for his canned food.

I was right - you don't understand the question. Is there anyone who does?

The question is not "do people think?" but "is there?" And if you mean, by your constant refusal to actually answer the question, there really IS no objective morality, then can you please tell me why it would be wrong to do anything if I thought it was okay? Could you reasonably say "This is wrong and unfair!"

At which stage, why did you seem to complain about innocent men being killed? Surely that is okay if there is no objective morality

I complain about innocent men dieing because I feel that way. You have to answer questions of morality for yourself, you can't let a group do it for your... well, you could...

After some consideration, Typeline, I believe I have come to understand why you don't get the question.

You see objective morality as being drawn in very broad strokes - so a moral statement is "It is wrong to kill". And then you say "Well, yes - it is wrong for me to stab my nextdoor neighbor today, but it might be okay in a nuclear war to kill him for his food."

But this is NOT what objective morality is. The moral statement is very specific; "It is not moral to stab my neighbor today for no reason". That is an objective moral statement - it does not matter if someone thinks it IS okay to do it, or not. It remains wrong no matter what someone thinks.

So, returning to recasting. The moral statement is not a blanket, broad-brush "It is wrong to recast" but rather (perhaps) something like "it is wrong to recast except when the miniature is out of production and no-one is making any more and there are no second-hand ones to be had".

But it does not matter if Bob says it is okay to recast WHENEVER; it does not become okay for him. But if Alice wants to recast a model which is OOP and there are no copies of etc., it is okay.

This is not subjective morality, because each situation (which is different) has the same answer of moral or not regardless of whether someone thinks it is moral or not.

I hope I have explained this clearly.

@Darknight i'll answer the question ( or try )

Morality have a standard in an ideal world. But humans have flaws , thus various shades of gray are between the black and white.

For the whiter shade that is able to do so , it feels natural to them.

For the darker shade that is unable to do so , they'll attempt to justify it with which ever reasons "best benefit them"

Like i said from the beginning , humans are unable to see when they are lieing to themselves ,
which is our worst flaw ( worse then actually making a mistake ) because how can we do right when we were wrong before we even took a step?

Darknight wrote:

Listen, everything your saying is showing me that your stuck in the third grade.

In the third grade, I'd learned to use the apostophe. And, in all seriousness, there is no need to be insulting. You have comprehensively failed to answer a very simple question - I suspect because you do not understand it. Insulting my comprehension and education is not a good plan in that situation.

I wasn't referring to your education. I was alluding to the way children form their first moral thoughts, feelings and behaviors in moral absolutes where their moral code is the only correct way of thinking. For children everything is black and white, they subscribe to the moral code of their parents in absolutes and denounce the way other children feel. Usually there isn't much disagreement with children though, if they are commonly together their parents probably feel the same way. Murder is bad, the thief is always wrong and the good guys always win to kids.

Darknight wrote:But this is NOT what objective morality is. The moral statement is very specific; "It is not moral to stab my neighbor today for no reason". That is an objective moral statement - it does not matter if someone thinks it IS okay to do it, or not. It remains wrong no matter what someone thinks.

For me it isn't. But some of the people that live in my town think that kind of thing is perfectly reasonable, along with shooting people if they come near your house out in the woods.

Darknight wrote:But it does not matter if Bob says it is okay to recast WHENEVER; it does not become okay for him. But if Alice wants to recast a model which is OOP and there are no copies of etc., it is okay.

Maybe I think it does though. Maybe I think Bob is totally cool to recast whenever. And maybe a ton of other people on the internet do too. Maybe we don't think it's ok for Alice to recast ANYTHING, because she is kind of a bitch. And bitchy people don't deserve models.

Funny thing is that I have STILL NOT seen any numbers confirming that small recasts hurt GW in any way noticeable whatsoever.

I think this thread has officially become a place for people to stand on a high horse and throw vegetables at eachother, there seems to be very little respect for other peoples opinions in a lot of these posts.

This is not sermon alley, and it sure as heckadoodle, isn't a court of law...

SERIOUSLY THOUGH FOLKS!!!

If you feel that GW IS losing money over this I want you to prove to me that you are speaking based on fact, and not some personal moral standpoint.

This whole YOU THIEF thing is drastically out of proportion, and I am honestly surprised that people would just assume that this is some sort of divine yet common knowledge that I seemed (and others) to have missed entirely when looking through the book of logic lodged snugly into my brain cheeks.

PROVE TO ME WITH NUMBERS, GW NUMBERS AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU.

Really though this thread is getting a bit out of hand, and there really is no progress in this anymore.

Yelling the same stuff over and over does not make ANYONE right, and I was personally trying to hear some interesting perspectives but all we have now seems to be a he said she said shouting match of moralistically epic proportions.

If you think a piece of plastic as insignificant as a melta gun is above a quick copying simply on the grounds that is technically illegal because GW says so is just greed speaking through a company into this topic.

Do I care that GW loses a TINY BIT of money over things like this? Not in the slightest.

Do I care that people are actively trying to bring this issue into the light, because it is GW's decision in the long run what they want to do.

As I stated before GW will lose a lot of customer and eventually tank if they do not change some of their business practices, and they will do so because of their own actions.

I can only imagine how long GW customers have had issues on some level with this company, what really confuses me is how they have lasted so long if they pull of all of these strange self-infatuated schemes.

Please, please, please, if people do not agree with you do not waste pages and pages of reiterration like some sort of demonic mantra hellbent on changing my mind over toys.

GET A GRIP, people have different views than you MOST of the time, and if you cannot handle that you should just move right on.

I wonder if the topic has wandered far enough off target yet...

Wrexasaur, did you at least like my comparison of the situation to the Laffer curve? I thought that was pretty keen myself.

Wrexasaur wrote:
PROVE TO ME WITH NUMBERS, GW NUMBERS AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU.

You see, thats really hard , and especially hard when we are dealing with:

50 cents plastic been valued at $70 .

Because thats what warhammer is , its an idea . Just like a dollar bill is just paper , yet it means so much.

I mean when i buy GW items, what goes through my mind?

-How much of these will i actually use ? What do i do with the additional bits? How does the kit amount match? ( loota for example)

-How long will these last before the next edition ( new ones are probably more thought after and looks better )
where will the OOP items go? who will buy them? how will the price be determined?

Just those 2 small examples are a good determining factor when investing into an army , thus ( validating the horrendous over priced items )
directly related are recasts , which of course effect ^

Then oh, well it is GW's loss Lunahound, because for me these conceptions of GW somehow being the one that is inherently right just because some countries allow them to through THEIR laws through simply does not lead me to feel any sort of sympathy towards them, at all. If we were on mars we couldn't breathe without a oxygen supply of some kind and we would die, this is fact.

What most of you appear to be presenting is loosely based theory at best, without a foothold it the reality of the impact. Feth the laws we are not even talking about them at this point, what a colossal waste of time to anyway quite honestly, because as a few lawyers have said already they WOULD and HAVE prepared the truth to benefit the highest bidder, and that is life Luna, not this fantastical Utopian dream of every law being so literal that you simply CANNOT debate its relevance to reality and the circumstances involved with it.

Welcome to the earth and enjoy your stay.

(please do not take this personally as it is my opinion, and I really mean no personal offense.)

While we're talking about recasting, how about downloading codexes off of the internet?

Typeline wrote:
To be perfectly honest if GW behaved a little better as a company it's customer base might not turn to illegally (or not) copying their sculpts so quickly.

I'm not sure I agree here. Some people will behave morally. They will stop playing GW games if they believe that GW is taking advantage of them. This is the moral response to the problem. Not everyone is willing to engage in criminal activity to punish a company, this is vigilantism.

It's like the Laffer curve. The more you tax your citizenry the more they are going to evade taxes. The more GW raises it's prices the more they are going to lose to people illegally copying their sculpts.

Perhaps - though I think they'll just lose customers long before they lose excessive revenue to piracy.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Funny thing is that I have STILL NOT seen any numbers confirming that small recasts hurt GW in any way noticeable whatsoever.

That's because you're not approaching this thread from the same viewpoint as everyone else. No one else cares about money. We all agree that the amount lost to a single person recasting a meltagun is negligible. This isn't about that, it's about whether it is right to do so.

Perhaps there are no numbers that demonstrate what you want to see because GW isn't such a big entity as, say, the RIAA. Perhaps not enough people know how to recast things to make this a problem on an scale that can be economically measured yet.

You still haven't answer the counter question, either. Given that a single candy bar is a drop in a bucket to a company like walmart, would you feel justified in shoplifting one?

How about not, make a new thread for it if you want to so bad.

You cannot copy a codex like a mini, you cannot copy a candy bar like a mini...
RHETORIC GODAMMIT!!

Because if I could turn water into wine the whole planet would be a nonstop party 24/7.

Redbeard wrote:That's because you're not approaching this thread from the same viewpoint as everyone else. No one else cares about money. We all agree that the amount lost to a single person recasting a meltagun is negligible. This isn't about that, it's about whether it is right to do so.

Your opinion mate, and I will leave it at that.

These threads always end up making me laugh with my head in my hands. They start off with a point or someone opinion. Then, given enough pages ALWAYS turns into a mash up of religious/morality/legal issues. You start on page one thinking you know what your going to say at the end, only to read the end and think what the hell happened to the thread?

You dakkites make my belly jiggle

Typeline wrote:Wrexasaur, did you at least like my comparison of the situation to the Laffer curve? I thought that was pretty keen myself.

It bears much relevance to the topic at hand, and I appreciate you pointing it out. The same cannot be said of some of the other loose theories that people have been throwing around the thread w/o any literal and verifiable fact (theory has undetermined fact; meaning it is correct for posing a sincerely rational thought based on logic, especially after being tested and proven theory is based not in moral values, but in scientific fact).

If I were driving a boat for instance, and my "morals" told me that I HAD to ignore an iceberg (blablabla, history w/e) or that I HAD to stay on the boat playing my cello or violin or w/e, I would sincerely worry about the state of my mental health, and my ability to rationalize a situation.

Let's face it, the example I just gave was quite vague, and did not help much. If I think about the musicians maybe they actually thought it was morally reprehensible to leave their post, or they just realized an assumed theory of death, because people most definitely survived by sheer will power alone, and I respect these people for just fighting harder or even being luckier. They made it out of the nonsense and lived to see another day.

Take what you want from that statement.

What? There weren't enough lifeboats for everyone on the Titanic, but that's really not what anyone's talking about.

Darknight wrote:

Noble713 wrote:So much for absolute morality.

That is hardly a reasonable argument, because it fails to take into account the differences between microbes and humans and other lifeforms.

Although your post DOES highlight a very important issue; without a belief in a creator deity who somehow made humans special, there is no logical argument for morality. People find it uncomfortable when this is presented to them - because atheists are generally speaking decent people who do not murder, and generally consider murder to be "wrong". You, Noble713, reject the idea of "made in the image of God" and hence morality becomes completely survivalistic to you.

I disagree completely with your conclusion, but I cannot fault the logical steps you have taken to arrive at it. What I reject is your first premise, which is something totally outside the realm of this debate.

Noble is the sort of man who would recast if i) he could get away with it and ii) it was worth his time. He is (or at least gives the impression of) not encumbered by any of the holdover moral issues which bind most atheists. It is a very pure moral stance, identical to mine a few years ago, and I respect it greatly for its intellectual rigor. Noble713 is the kind of man who would destroy the universe if it was in his interests to do so - or at least claims to be. It is an incorrect stance, but the logic is superb when based on the original premise.

Are you fething kidding me? This is where we are now? I'm Christian and will gladly admit it and discuss my beliefs, but for you to believe that an atheist/agnostic can not have a logical argument to be a good person and have morality then you are such a blind bigot I am insulted by your very thought process. Gee, I don't know, how about the betterment of mankind? Would that be a good enough logical argument that you didn't need religion to necessarily get behind? What a novel idea! Just because some people get there with religion, doesn't mean someone else can't get there another way. Also, despite a person's religious beliefs or lack thereof, very few are truly good people. Very few people will truly look beyond themselves as it is a very hard thing to do. What a shock. Everyone's views are self-derived and do not necessarily fall into some happy easy to digest stereotype. I'm sorry the world isn't as dogmatically digestible as you'd have it. Most people are neutral, few people are good and few people are evil, and religious background has nothing to do with that. If you don't think that then please join the rest of us in the 21st century or stop wasting carbon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

Typeline wrote:
To be perfectly honest if GW behaved a little better as a company it's customer base might not turn to illegally (or not) copying their sculpts so quickly.

I'm not sure I agree here. Some people will behave morally. They will stop playing GW games if they believe that GW is taking advantage of them. This is the moral response to the problem. Not everyone is willing to engage in criminal activity to punish a company, this is vigilantism.

Why is your morality the only absolute view? To many vigilantism might be a moral and justified response. Just because you don't agree with it does not necessarily make it untrue.

If I could clearly remember the fair use laws of at least the United States with regards to the area this matter would fall under, I could post whether or not recasting is absolutely illegal.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

As an aside - if you condemn illegal recasting while illegally obtaining movies/music/texts/games/etc, you are just as much a thief. Enjoy.

Just do it, who cares what other people think.

You are not a thief. Hats off to the engineer inside you if you are able to produce good quality sculpts/casts. No one is being hurt here directly, forget the insane GW markup, nay, remember it and the pain it caused you as you cast stuff for a fraction of the price.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.

Just do it.

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

Conversions
Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:
Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Frankly about this bit, I have some serious doubt that it passes legal muster, (esp in the US which has a very weak Moral Rights law) if for no other reason than conversions generally don't involve -reproduction- which is what IP usually protects. First Sale doctines also genrally allow folks to do nearly anything they please with the physical objects they buy. They might be able to insist on it at their venues.. but outside I doubt they could make a case.

Darknight wrote:And Robin Hood was a criminal and a dangerous outlaw. His only redeeming grace was that the money he was stealing from the rich was going back to the poor who it had been stolen from.

This assumes somewhat that the laws that he broke were legitimate, considering that John Lackland's abuses were such that he was forced into signing the Magna Carta, this is somewhat questionable. Policy statements like the above one are in my mind, similarly or even more qustionable, that particular one is one that I have, and will continue to violate, since I don't consider myself to be under any contractual, moral or legal obligation to follow it.

Neconilis wrote:

Darknight wrote:Noble is the sort of man who would recast if i) he could get away with it and ii) it was worth his time. He is (or at least gives the impression of) not encumbered by any of the holdover moral issues which bind most atheists. It is a very pure moral stance, identical to mine a few years ago, and I respect it greatly for its intellectual rigor. Noble713 is the kind of man who would destroy the universe if it was in his interests to do so - or at least claims to be. It is an incorrect stance, but the logic is superb when based on the original premise.

Are you fething kidding me? This is where we are now? I'm Christian and will gladly admit it and discuss my beliefs, but for you to believe that an atheist/agnostic can not have a logical argument to be a good person and have morality then you are such a blind bigot I am insulted by your very thought process. Gee, I don't know, how about the betterment of mankind? Would that be a good enough logical argument that you didn't need religion to necessarily get behind? What a novel idea! Just because some people get there with religion, doesn't mean someone else can't get there another way. Also, despite a person's religious beliefs or lack thereof, very few are truly good people. Very few people will truly look beyond themselves as it is a very hard thing to do. What a shock. Everyone's views are self-derived and do not necessarily fall into some happy easy to digest stereotype. I'm sorry the world isn't as dogmatically digestible as you'd have it. Most people are neutral, few people are good and few people are evil, and religious background has nothing to do with that. If you don't think that then please join the rest of us in the 21st century or stop wasting carbon.

Well said, thank you. Morality is, to me, very much like language. It has arisen from interactions between people, first in a tribal setting, and then in larger and larger social groupings, until we've finally reached the 21st century, where that interaction extends around the world. In the course of this interaction, many tenets have become near-universal. "Murder of another human being is wrong", being the obvious example. People who deviate from the moral consensus of their own society have always been considered criminals, with or without a divine mandate of judgement.

"In the absence of God, why is murder bad?" is a trivial question to answer. For one thing, almost nobody wants to be murdered, so it's a simple violation of free will, to begin with. Most crimes boil down to theft, whether it's stealing a car or taking a life. "Taking" being the operative word here, with the perpetrator assuming a right they're not entitled to, namely that of deciding when their victim dies.

Now, my morality is not absolute, in that it hasn't always been the same. Two hundred years ago, the cultural consensus of the western world was very different. Today, it has evolved from that level, partially by amalgamating aspects of bordering cultural spheres of influence. Thus, we make a return to language. It too has changed over the centuries and yet, and yet, we still consider it a unified and consistent system of communication, with clear rules and boundaries even though there was no formal codification at the root of it. There was no stone tablet or intelligent designer behind its origin, it evolved.

There's a big flaw in questioning where the morality of an atheist comes from compared to a theist. Most christians to not take the entire bible at face value. They pick and choose what to believe, there are lots of things the bible says and the chapter (Leviticus) usually used to justify an anti-homosexual stance is the same chapter that bans the eating of shellfish and says that the death penalty is acceptable for blasphemy or for a child insulting their parents!!!

Obviously these are a bit extreme, but it shows just how happy some people are to selectively quote the bible to support certain forms of bigotry. But to the point at hand, "morality" is a largely cultural and historical thing, it's very interestingly tied up with the evolution of ourselves and the ability for us to have compassion and form social groups. It's very complex. There are many sources of morals, not just holy books, and the reasons to respecting a certain moral code are wider and more complex than merely fearing the wrath of some supernatural being. You don't need to be a religious person to be a moral person. Most people probably learn their morals from their parents, not from a holy book. And religious people who read the bible don't take it all at face value, they pick and choose what bits to regard and what bits to ignore, and the ability to pick and choose is deeper rooted in humanity than religion, a holy book may influence your decision, and offer suggestions, but theists still pick and choose what to follow just as atheists do. They simply don't use a holy book as one of the many sources morals tend to be picked up from.

In a world where I can add two and three to get any number I want is the world that WE DON'T LIVE IN!.

I love the way this has swung back around to morality.


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.

I'm more moral-er than you are!

Conversions

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

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

Does unique refer to an individual model or an army as a whole? Each can be refered to as a single object. The top part says it's okay as long as you don't make a business out of it. The bottom says Don't do it because its illegal. So does that mean that if your "masterpiece" is a single it's okay? But if your masterpiece is your whole army with a different look it's not okay?

So I guess what I'm saying is this: It says make the bits, but don't make a business out of it cuz that's their game. Can "one-time unique" be applied only to one bit/model? Or can it be applied to 1 army?

Pardons If I'm too far offtopic...

"One-time, unique" means a single model made by converting an original GW model.

If you want to make an army of the same model you have to buy all the base figures and do the conversions to them. Otherwise you would have to make a mould and cast them, which is clearly prohibited by the second part.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you want to make an army of the same model you have to buy all the base figures and do the conversions to them.

Which would be neither one time, nor unique, which is just the bare bones of the problems with that policy..

Of course, you could have -lots- of fun with this idea, folks seem to be hung up for example on Meltaguns.. but what if someone scratchbuilt and recast a grenade launcher, or flamer, or even autocannon or heavy stubber equivalent, regardless of their existance in the game, GW does't own the idea of or appearance of, drum feed grenade launchers, flamethowers or heavy machine guns, except their -very own sculpts-

Each figure would be one-time, and unique.

GW own two kinds of copyright in the meltagun, etc.

1. The sculpt.
2. The design.

If you make your own sculpt which is identical to the GW design, you violate 2 but not 1.

I you make a gun which is fairly like a meltagun, but a bit different, you avoid both.

Some weapons are so generic that GW couldn't reasonably claim copyright in the design. The Ork heavy shoota is basically a German MG38, for example.

How does copyrighting on weapons work? Is it case by case? I would be interested to know.

lol Im gonna sculpt up some Microwave Armor Blasters and cast them up.

That started out as a joke....but its not seemin like such a bad idea...

Wow, what an entertaining thread.

I see validity on each side of the arguement.

The arguement really boils down to your world view in reguards to capitalism:

do you exist soley for the purpose of being a consumer in service to the company or does the company exist solely for the purpose of providing you a service?

I don't know the answer. I have my own view, of course but not the answer.

On final question to the ably vocal LunaHound: from whence did you obtain your avatar and the water stirring lass in the sig section of your posts? For the sake of your hard line arguement, I hope they are both your original art peices.... (not ment as an attack) just a question.

Commodore Perry

This thread = Boring.


Let recasters recast if they want. If it is not against any law then you are blatently NOT going to stop people doing it by whining about morality.

Some people need to lighten up. How can people make references to the holocaust and the nazi regime in a thread about recasting little toy soldiers?

Do you actually realise how moronic that is?

Ketara wrote:
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.

What a great post and I mean that with all sincerity. Consider yourself 'Friended'.

That said I would offer a small riposte on the above paragraph. While culture no doubt plays a part in our development of right/wrong, I believe there is strong evidence that evolution has gifted us a certain inherent code which is universal to our species. For example, the Golden Rule is generally found in almost all cultures in some form or another. Dealing harshly with infanticide might be another.

Now, I will admit that other evolutionary pressures can override that morality, namely in-group impulses manifested in group-think. A good example would be the Nazis (It's always the Nazis right...I just Godwined myself). Anyways, the Nazis were able to dehumanize the Jews to reduce the pressure of the Golden Rule by caricatures, disgust, etc. Slavery in early American shows the same scars of this thought process (Exaggeration of physical differences between 'them' and 'us' leads to eventual dehumanization).

However, if you were to present a scenario of "Man kills other man for no reason then rapes his wife".....with no other pertinent information such as country of origin, culture, race, etc....I believe, barring emotionally unstable individuals, you would find a universal reply of disgust. When you start adding in details that helps differentiate the victim from 'you', such as race, nationalism, religion....then it provides an escape hatch from the Golden Rule.

As an interesting and on topic side note, there was a social experiment carried out on this premise, where school children were present various scenarios from the Bible. The specific instance I remember is the Battle of Jericho. When the school children were presented the scenario minus the context or appropriate names, they found Joshua to be a bloodthirsty savage worthy of death. However...when they were presented the actual Bible story...the children disagreed with Joshua...not based on the murder of the city...but because he could have used the resources of the city rather than burn them! Scary eh?

Kilkrazy wrote:Each figure would be one-time, and unique.

When you've produced your umteenth identical or near identical conversion, to fill out all your troops choices, that becomes a very -odd- definition of "Unique" and "One Time", and to me it's somewhat beside the point, since I'm not at all sure that GW can make a good legal claim that conversions are "major infringments" that they're graciously allowing under narrow conditions to better the hobby, and would otherwise be illegal.

As for not mixing IP from different owners, look at my avatar, and I think you can figure out my opinion there... I'll gleefully do it, just not for profit.

with an iron fist wrote:If I could clearly remember the fair use laws of at least the United States with regards to the area this matter would fall under, I could post whether or not recasting is absolutely illegal.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

As an aside - if you condemn illegal recasting while illegally obtaining movies/music/texts/games/etc, you are just as much a thief. Enjoy.

Fair Use doesn't have anything useful to say on the topic of sculptural works.

That's a very excellent point Age. Certain impulses are encoded into us genetically, however, I'm not so sure that it's relevant to same extent in all cases.

One feature which is of key importance here is the use of language in a human beings development. If a human is raised in an environment with next to no language or company, their brains fail to develop properly, and their capabilities for mental activity are permanently damaged. People in this condition tend to be far more feral and barbaric than you and I in matters of violence. And evidence from the animal kingdom would agree with that. A male baboon or lion will often kill and eat the young of another male.

Whilst we are genetically predisposed to treat our own family and blood well, I'd dubious as to whether that genetic programming extends to cover other people as well. When someone is raised, they are taught to value people from their own nation, race, and creed above others. It creates what is, in effect, a third tier of family (your actual friends being the second and family being the first). Anyone not a member of that third tier of family is an outsider (so non-Americans in your case), and when the time comes for war, you would find it far easier to kill them rather than your fellow Americans. It's not so much that they're dehumanized, as it's a case of them not being, 'one of us'.

But yes, genetic programming does play a large part in our moral code, indeed, that's where I believe the very basic core of morality began. It evolved independantly from there. Excellent point.

While legally it seems that recasting is wrong, i feel that it is ok in some circumstances, these being that it is ok to recast a model that is oop assuming it was not limited run in the first place and not for comercial gain, using this logic it is ok to recast discontinued necromunda heavies, inquisitor figs (like the vindicare assasin), battlefleet gothic transports etc etc, but not anything current or anything like the games day minis, white dwarf etc etc.

Ketara wrote:If morality is objective, that means it has to exist independent 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...

...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.

I think I would disagree with your definition of objective morality in this case; it's probably a good thing to define.

We don't know of any sapient beings besides humanity. Thus, whether or not morals are ingrained in the universe (an unlikely proposition to an atheist, a likely one to a theist) or merely ingrained in humanity as a whole seems rather academic; both lead to pretty much the same end result (unless you're some hippy who thinks squirrels have a humanistic form of morality). In contrast, if there's no line of morality that goes through humanity as a whole, that would make morality markedly different. Thus, I would call myself a moral objectivist, but only with that objectivity within the confines of the human race, not as a material force.

Also, while you mention morality as a product of culture, I see the core of morality as having originated earlier than the development of all but the most basic cultures. That is to say, even communities that use nothing but rocks and sticks as tools required a system that allowed the individual and other individuals to work in a manner beneficial to both. Other aspects of "morality", such as religious law or cultural taboos came about later, and both less important and less universal than the core morals.

I pretty much agree with what Age of Egos said as well.

::EDIT: It apears we're actually in agreement concerning the core of morality having evolved a long time ago. Excellent!

OK, What do you all think of this then?

Original


Molds


Recasts


Castbike


Completed


?

That is a conversion if I am not mistaken, and it looks quite good. I don't think that would be against GW policy by any means.

I think it's a cool model concept (but I'm not so certain about the angled intakes).

Skarwael wrote:This thread = Boring.


Let recasters recast if they want. If it is not against any law then you are blatently NOT going to stop people doing it by whining about morality.

Some people need to lighten up. How can people make references to the holocaust and the nazi regime in a thread about recasting little toy soldiers?

Do you actually realise how moronic that is?

You obviously either haven't read the thread or you have not understood it.

It won't hurt them as a company in too much of a major respect, e.g. there's bitz sites that sell the same gear.

However, ethically this is the same as stealing. If you were to hypothetically clone a car-wheel because yours broke, you would consider that stealing. I'm not sure what ( either confused, ignored or superfluous) morality you have, but that's stealing to me. The same applies to models, or parts of models.

sA

What does it matter if GWs policy says you cant do something? That is GW written policy, it holds nothing over you as long as you are not employed by said company.

Now if it is law, that is a different story.

Am I wrong in thinking this?

Yes, yes you are.

That's the same as any other set of rules that don't physically or contractually hold a grip on you. And also, it's not a matter of "oh I'm breaking the rules!", it's morally wrong.

sA

Chapterhouse wrote:What does it matter if GWs policy says you cant do something? That is GW written policy, it holds nothing over you as long as you are not employed by said company.

Now if it is law, that is a different story.

Am I wrong in thinking this?

You're quite right.

In this case though, GW stated policy is based on their legal copyrights.

smiling Assassin wrote:It won't hurt them as a company in too much of a major respect, e.g. there's bitz sites that sell the same gear.

However, ethically this is the same as stealing. If you were to hypothetically clone a car-wheel because yours broke, you would consider that stealing. I'm not sure what ( either confused, ignored or superfluous) morality you have, but that's stealing to me. The same applies to models, or parts of models.

sA

So- if I made a wheel for my car you're saying thats stealing? I call it makin a wheel so I can go get groceries since I aint walking 10 miles in 115 degree weather :p

And if you really do think makin my own wheels are 'theft', who am I stealing from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, does GW hold the copyright to the Wheel now too? -maybe they are trying to take over the world....

Janthkin wrote:

with an iron fist wrote:If I could clearly remember the fair use laws of at least the United States with regards to the area this matter would fall under, I could post whether or not recasting is absolutely illegal.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

As an aside - if you condemn illegal recasting while illegally obtaining movies/music/texts/games/etc, you are just as much a thief. Enjoy.

Fair Use doesn't have anything useful to say on the topic of sculptural works.

Fair Use seems easily applicable to sculptural works.

For example:

Model-making school -- Take this GW model and copy it in resin as a mould making exercise.
Reviewing -- Take a picture and put it in your review.

If it isn't illegal by law - it is unethical to use someone else's work as your own.



Unless - you fully created your own thing/product.

Then its really your own.

Yeah?

We should really be talking about GW policy if nothing else when it comes to the law, mainly because the law changes GW's code does not (as much). They seem to have a hard line on this, but worrying about personal use is pretty paranoid, just don't take it to tournaments if you are worried about it I guess.

I think the moral debate is not a waste of time so much as an act of futility. We all have opinions and I really do not want to see the thread go downhill again.

Wrexasaur wrote:We should really be talking about GW policy if nothing else when it comes to the law, mainly because the law changes GW's code does not (as much). They seem to have a hard line on this, but worrying about personal use is pretty paranoid, just don't take it to tournaments if you are worried about it I guess.

I think the moral debate is not a waste of time so much as an act of futility. We all have opinions and I really do not want to see the thread go downhill again.

Word.


Ok - question is - GW policy.. when does it apply? When you buy the product as a consumer?


Isn't this similiar to EULA - To my understanding.. though correct me if I'm wrong -

MMO Accounts cannot be sold - due to the EULA - POLICY. Not law.

Though we never clicked any button to say 'YES' I promise not to recast - is that something hidden when we give GW our dollar bill?
heh.

So would something like this apply to us, noobs who buy GW products.

Software licensing is a different thing to purchased physical items.

The use of other's work within your own depends on (a) the degree of originality of the other's work you make use of and (b) what copyrights they assign.

Hasslefree Miniatures make armatures and heads which they allow people to use to make new commercial models.

GW make SM shoulder pads, which are a section of an oblate ogive. It's a completely unoriginal work and can be duplicated without any problems.

Mistress of minis wrote:

smiling Assassin wrote:It won't hurt them as a company in too much of a major respect, e.g. there's bitz sites that sell the same gear.

However, ethically this is the same as stealing. If you were to hypothetically clone a car-wheel because yours broke, you would consider that stealing. I'm not sure what ( either confused, ignored or superfluous) morality you have, but that's stealing to me. The same applies to models, or parts of models.

sA

So- if I made a wheel for my car you're saying thats stealing? I call it makin a wheel so I can go get groceries since I aint walking 10 miles in 115 degree weather :p

And if you really do think makin my own wheels are 'theft', who am I stealing from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, does GW hold the copyright to the Wheel now too? -maybe they are trying to take over the world....

No.

If you were to (don't hold me on the technicals, I know a wheel made out of plastic would be next to useless, it's the idea I'm getting at) make a mould out of an existing wheel, pour in the plastic/whatever, then take that wheel as your own, that's wrong. Making your own wheel is very much different to making a copy of one that you already own, that you bought from a company.

sA

I would like to see an example of a mini like a standard space marine taken down to a copyable and GW "legal" quality.

It would be kind of interesting to see how tight their grip is on the actual piece of plastic itself.

No.

If you were to (don't hold me on the technicals, I know a wheel made out of plastic would be next to useless, it's the idea I'm getting at) make a mould out of an existing wheel, pour in the plastic/whatever, then take that wheel as your own, that's wrong. Making your own wheel is very much different to making a copy of one that you already own, that you bought from a company.

Besides the fact that I think you are being pretty pedantic, I also disagree with you, and we can just leave it at that.

Well done Augustus, those are very nice.

However, now fully half of the people in this thread regard you as a thief, and a morally corrupt person. Congratulations!

Wrexasaur wrote:I would like to see an example of a mini like a standard space marine taken down to a copyable and GW "legal" quality.

It would be kind of interesting to see how tight their grip is on the actual piece of plastic itself.

Would you mean - someone making a look alike space marine out of green stuff?

Or a modded Space Marine - that is recasted?




Like this example? Scibor Monstorous.

http://cgi.ebay.com/28mm-30mm-SF-Knight-conversion-sculpture_W0QQitemZ220458161511QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item3354549567&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14


Though - he never calls it a space marine, says its a space marine, or anything of that nature. Nor does he replicates the same model over - so they could be seen as a 'Conversion' out of GS. As he uses GS all the time.

Instead of... pure manufactured recast resin?

I'll repost my original take on the issue, as Luna was the only one to comment on it.

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.

Would you mean - someone making a look alike space marine out of green stuff?

Or a modded Space Marine - that is recasted?

I was thinking along the lines of filing and cutting all the bits off of say a tactical marine with a meltagun.

What would be left after you took the GW off of it so to speak.

I reckon you would need to lose the backpack, the helmet, the Imperial eagles and the gun.

The rest of the equipment is a pretty generic hard shell armour with no identifying or original pieces.

So you replace the bits you dropped with your own design bits, and you're golden!

Kilkrazy wrote:Fair Use seems easily applicable to sculptural works.

For example:

Model-making school -- Take this GW model and copy it in resin as a mould making exercise.
Reviewing -- Take a picture and put it in your review.

Interesting perspective. I don't think your model-making example holds up - "it's educational!" isn't a free pass - but you might be able to cobble some sort of example together.

I should rephrase my original statement: "Fair use doesn't allow for anything analogous to software/media duplication for sculpture."

I don't think fair use allows for backing up of software. It's the EULA as modified by local laws which allows for that.

Fair Use is criticism, review, and education, basically.

I suppose you could say that if you want to teach someone how to back up Windows XP properly, you have to make a complete copy of everything.

Some operating systems (Mac OSX for instance) have a built-in backup utility.

Is it the case then, that personal recasting goes against GW's IP policy, but not the actual law?

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think fair use allows for backing up of software. It's the EULA as modified by local laws which allows for that.

Fair Use is criticism, review, and education, basically.

I suppose you could say that if you want to teach someone how to back up Windows XP properly, you have to make a complete copy of everything.

Some operating systems (Mac OSX for instance) have a built-in backup utility.

Yes...and no. You're right, making backups of software is not part of traditional "Fair Use." In the US, though, federal copyright law specifically allows for "archival" copies of software (section 117).

I freely admit to aggregating many of the various exceptions to the owner's exclusive rights, which is imprecise (but faster to type).

Cool siggie man, I really like that. Where did you get it?

(I am still trying to figure out if there is a real way to measure losses from the melta-gun thing, I am starting to think it is totally based on fiction.)

Ketara wrote:Is it the case then, that personal recasting goes against GW's IP policy, but not the actual law?

No. There is no exception to copyright based around purely personal use of a copy of a sculpture, in either the US or the UK.

Ah. It's just that's what it sounded like several people were saying, and I wanted that clarified.

I skipped 12 pages or so. But I can't imagine it was much other than "It's stealing!""No, it isn't!" over and over.

I have no problem with recasting items that are artificially scarce.
GW writes the rules. They also know how many of each bit is on the sprues.
They limit specials on the sprues and write rules allowing multiples in squads.
They do this to drive sales.
If they were more than a miniature company, they would make sure we had what was needed in the box.
but this is a practice they have always followed, and I have always found it offensive.
Every unit back in the all metal days came with the crap weapon options, so you had to buy the good ones.
Like the old Devastators, one of each weapon. Yay for haveing to buy four boxes to create a uniform squad.

They get the bird and I will cast specials and heavys if I need to.
You can believe it is stealing all you want.
If I were to need more of a special weapon, I would either cast it, or go without.
Either way GW would not get a cent from me WRT those specials.
They are not losing or gaining.

Kilkrazy wrote: Fair Use is criticism, review, and education, basically.

You forgot parody, or is that included in criticism and review?

IIRC, "Fair Use" is decided on a case by case basis, with a arguably complex test, regarding how much of the copyrighted material is used, the effect on the market and few other factors.. It's an affirmitive defense, based on the First Amendment, but there's no statuatory list of specified exemptions. It's something you kinda can't be -entirely- sure of where you stand till you get sued, and the judge decides..

Ketara wrote:Well done Augustus, those are very nice.

However, now fully half of the people in this thread regard you as a thief, and a morally corrupt person. Congratulations!

Ahh, do you think so, truly?

Consider perhaps these are not mine?

...

Let's say, hypothetically, one were trying to build a case supporting recasting. This example is a good one because:

(1) It includes an original Model
(2) It has custom sculpted parts and is less than 25% original
(3) Makes use of recast custom components

This is a great example of the kind of virtuous, inspired, ethical modeling recasting can offer a player.

I would say the stances:

recasting (at all)=illegal

is certainly false, and furthermore:

recasting (at all) = immoral

is also incredibly narrow minded, judgmental and artistically limited point of view.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I wouldn't define it as stealing, TBH.

You've already said it's illegal numerous times. Your argument is based on the fact "I want it but I don't want to pay for it". That's stealing. You'd lose your hands in some countries for stealing, be it a goat, a melta gun, a penny, a woman.

I made a multimelta marine by gluing a melta gun on top of another melta gun upside down and moving around the feed tube and adding an IG scope. If I may say so myself, it's a damn fine use of resources, and looks good too. Be intuitive. Be creative. Make a melta out of a lasgun. Think outside the box. Perhaps glue two lasguns together and put three lasgun barrels in a cluster to make a nade launcher or melta, depending on what other defining goodies you add.

Be creative...

Rico.

Janthkin wrote:

Ketara wrote:Is it the case then, that personal recasting goes against GW's IP policy, but not the actual law?

No. There is no exception to copyright based around purely personal use of a copy of a sculpture, in either the US or the UK.

I just went over the Spanish IP Law and it appears to be a fuzzy line. If you were recasting the latest SM Chaplain GW would have a 100% chnace to sue you but as the law allows for some exceptions you might be able to get away with an OOP miniature or a common enough design. BTW at least in Spain GW is trademarking certain words that if contested probably wouldn´t stand the test (eg. Imperio/Empire for WHFB)


When did I sign a user agreement with GW? The bit in their web page is more of a wish list I don´t think that certain clauses are applicable outside GWs sanctioned events the no 3rd party pieces has been object of suits in the software industry when MS and Apple tried enhacting it.

M.

Parody is specifically mentioned in the US Fair Use provisions though not in the UK's. I don't know how much difference this makes to the law in practice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
With reference to Augustus's case...

Recasting is normally understood to mean taking a mould off a commercial figure or bit and using it to make copies. That is the way Dakka 'officially' uses theterm.

If you make your own original sculpture and cast from a mould of it, that is casting not recasting.

If you make a composite work consisting of some (not recasted) commercial parts and some of your own parts, that would be a conversion.

If you make a mould of your conversion, and cast copies, it might or might not be considered recasting. There is no clear dividing line, but a court would take into account the amount of the composite work that was new, and the method of production. For instance, if you could buy commercial models and add bits to it, copying the commercial model would be recasting even if you added 75% new parts to the finished model.

@Miguelsan
You don't have to have signed an agreement with GW to be bound by their conditions. (I'm speaking in general.)

Firstly, copyright law takes effect whether you personally have agreed or not. The same as that you are governed by law against stabbing, although you haven't made an agreement with your neighbours or the government notto stab people.

Secondly, GW can make a contractual condition of selling their models to ou, and you can agree to this condition by the action of buying the models. That is certainly part of English contract law. You'll probably find a clause somewhere in the GW legal conditions saying that disputes arising will be tried under English law.

Kilkrazy wrote:@Miguelsan
Firstly, copyright law takes effect whether you personally have agreed or not. The same as that you are governed by law against stabbing, although you haven't made an agreement with your neighbours or the government notto stab people.

Secondly, GW can make a contractual condition of selling their models to ou, and you can agree to this condition by the action of buying the models. That is certainly part of English contract law. You'll probably find a clause somewhere in the GW legal conditions saying that disputes arising will be tried under English law.

We agree in the first, that was not my point. My problem is that right now (wont speak for English Law) under Spanish Law GW is selling their miniatures as-is, with no contract between us because so far (again in Spain) any clauses hidden in their web page or in Mr Kirby´s closet can´t have effect unless I´m informed of them and formal or tacitally agree to them. These legal conditions would be nul and void no matter what English Law says as I´m not a resident of the UK nor I agreed to settle my disputes with GW under English law unless I was required to sign a contract with GW when I bought my GW miniatures.

M.

"I want it but I don't want to pay for it" isn't stealing. It's making a decision based on cost vs value. Taking something from somebody else is stealing.

To talk about morality as a finite thing, or that one's morals (code of acceptable behavior) are anything other than opinion is wrong/inappropriate. The only "right" and "wrong" are the Laws in the accused home country.

And so far, no one has actually stated what the actual law (as in law names and dates and/or counts trial names )regarding fair use and copyrighted material are, just what they thing they are. I myself have conducted a small (and brief) search on the net for the US anti-piracy laws, as these are the closest i could think of, as they deal with intellectual property. Curse you google, I have not found the actual, on the books, US law.

The following is the closest I've found, but it deals more with Bush's 2007 law creating an "Anti-Piracy Czar" than actual laws on fair us and what constitutes piracy. But maybe it's a good starting point for someone to continue the search. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4279/show. Also http://www.opencongress.org/bill/1/110-h1201/show and http://www.opencongress.org/bill/1/110-h3155/show

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:"I want it but I don't want to pay for it" isn't stealing. It's making a decision based on cost vs value. Taking something from somebody else is stealing.

hmm....

And yes, you can steal an idea.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's what this whole argument is about.

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:And yes, you can steal an idea.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's what this whole argument is about.

So the process of someone having to get art degree , learn how to sculpt ,
time used to practice , and fight for a position of a sculptor in a company, and finally time spent on designing / sculpting the final product means nothing to the artist?

And the cost of hiring , scouting for artist , manufactoring the models , promotions , adverticing , competing with other companies means nothing to the company?

^ is what i feel the argument is about.

In addition to how ever much $ you "saved" from recast per person , is how much potential $ its worth to someone that is trying to sell their bits.

All these "ideals" tiny and small as it be are the bricks that makes up and support the foundation of this insanely expensive entity we call GW.
There are of course other various reasons that makes up and supports the "idea" of what the product's price is worth.
But im sure most of you have already thought about it no? i mean how you are willing to ultimately accept the price and continue being the customer.

Where is Judge Dread when you need him? The law is the law is the law. (and in this case, I don't claim to know what the law exactly is). The Law doesn't care whether you like it or not. If you do, good for you. If you don't, you have 3 options; you can obey it and be unhappy, you can break it and risk punishment, or you can try to change it(if you live in a democracy or republic).

As for the original sculptors as artists; I would like to shake the hand of whoever made all my old RT era chaos renegades, as they are freakin AWESOME! I would also like to find whoever made the 2nd and 3rd generation epic warlord titans, the metal chaos dreadnought, Vulkan Hestan and many of the other horrible things I've seen over the years, travel back in time, and convince them to change careers before they ever unleashed their "art" upon poor, innocent eyes.

Copyright has been discussed numerous times on Dakka and the relevant pages on US and UK law have been referenced. They are easy enough to find with Google if people can be bothered.

Copyright violation isn't theft in the pure legal definition. The distinction is that by copying a piece of someone else's work you do not deprive him of the original.

However, in the sense that you deprive him of the chance to sell his own copy, you are committing an offence against him.

In most cases it is a civil offence, though there are provisions for it to be treated as a criminal offence in some circumstances.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW the US and UK government web pages on copyright law are easily found using Google.

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:"I want it but I don't want to pay for it" isn't stealing. It's making a decision based on cost vs value. Taking something from somebody else is stealing.

That is essentially what I have been asking for pages now. Even if the melta-gun debacle means GW loses 1/10th of a penny somehow from me would hardly make me feel like any sort of thief. If these actions are truly wrong in a tangible way (theft should almost always lead to direct loss of property, that is the whole concept, food out of someone elses mouth and all that) we should be able to see GW taking some sort of noticeable loss of profit. This needs to be shown to me in actual losses before I will even consider the act of casting a melta gun is somehow inherently wrong for personal use or not.

I am essentially hearing moral, and law based debate, and I want to hear it from GW's perspective before I can make a solid judgment on this for myself. I want to know A.)If I am losing money because of this, and if so B.)How much money is being lost? (this is very important, because I can see the obvious 100% theft of an entire model based on considerable revenue losses, theoretical or not, they are based in solid fact.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:"I want it but I don't want to pay for it" isn't stealing. It's making a decision based on cost vs value. Taking something from somebody else is stealing.

That is essentially what I have been asking for pages now. Even if the melta-gun debacle means GW loses 1/10th of a penny somehow from me would hardly make me feel like any sort of thief. If these actions are truly wrong in a tangible way (theft should almost always lead to direct loss of property, that is the whole concept, food out of someone elses mouth and all that) we should be able to see GW taking some sort of noticeable loss of profit. This needs to be shown to me in actual losses before I will even consider the act of casting a melta gun is somehow inherently wrong for personal use or not.

I am essentially hearing moral, and law based debate, and I want to hear it from GW's perspective before I can make a solid judgment on this for myself. I want to know A.)If I am losing money because of this, and if so B.)How much money is being lost? (this is very important, because I can see the obvious 100% theft of an entire model based on considerable revenue losses, theoretical or not, they are based in solid fact.

K lets put it this way.

Say i buy command squads , i use the heavy flamers , grenade launcher and some flags , and the rest of melta and plasma i sell them or trade them.
Now , if people cast them even for their own use , and ends up as a wide accepted practice since the ideal is common , who will buy my bits?

If no one buys my bits , what will i do with them? It will effect on my future purchases right? because now i know i wont be able to get rid of my items.
Casting is not common atm , and this example wont be obvious. But imagine if the scenario i gave you is applied to everyone , can you still say it doesnt effect the sales?

And this is all before including the casting OOP army .

LunaHound wrote:If no one buys my bits , what will i do with them? It will effect on my future purchases right? because now i know i wont be able to get rid of my items.

In very simple and effective terms you include them in the sets where they should be in the first place.

This is like the most common mistake I see in business, and it is the core tenant on top of that... The customer is always right.

Wrexasaur wrote:

LunaHound wrote:If no one buys my bits , what will i do with them? It will effect on my future purchases right? because now i know i wont be able to get rid of my items.

In very simple and effective terms you include them in the sets where they should be in the first place.

This is like the most common mistake I see in business, and it is the core tenant on top of that... The customer is always right.

They are in the sets , just not as numerous as some customers like. And the amount everyone like is all diffierent.

Some might need just 1 for squad , some might need 20 for the whole army. Then what?

back into the cycle that is left over bits.

Do you see what i mean? Then , you are asking GW to turn into bits packs sold like japanese models.

I asked this question long ago " would you like GW sets to have the core set + weapon choices sprues "

100% of the people replied "no , i like how it is , mixed"

Lunahound wrote:They are in the sets , just not as numerous as people like.

By people you do mean customers, and that bears very little relevance to the fact that I see this as little more than a two bit scam.

Wrexasaur wrote:The customer is always right.

I much prefer the customer is NEVER wrong. {general usage here}

The customer may be uninformed, clueless or stupid, but they are never wrong (more general usage here). It is possible to be 'not wrong' but not right, either

True enough, true enough.

It just has a much better tone when you say always vs. never. Just works that way for most people.

Kilkrazy wrote:
With reference to Augustus's case...

Recasting is normally understood to mean taking a mould off a commercial figure or bit and using it to make copies. That is the way Dakka 'officially' uses theterm.

If you make your own original sculpture and cast from a mould of it, that is casting not recasting.

If you make a composite work consisting of some (not recasted) commercial parts and some of your own parts, that would be a conversion.

If you make a mould of your conversion, and cast copies, it might or might not be considered recasting. There is no clear dividing line, but a court would take into account the amount of the composite work that was new, and the method of production. For instance, if you could buy commercial models and add bits to it, copying the commercial model would be recasting even if you added 75% new parts to the finished model.

@Miguelsan
You don't have to have signed an agreement with GW to be bound by their conditions. (I'm speaking in general.)

Firstly, copyright law takes effect whether you personally have agreed or not. The same as that you are governed by law against stabbing, although you haven't made an agreement with your neighbours or the government notto stab people.

Secondly, GW can make a contractual condition of selling their models to ou, and you can agree to this condition by the action of buying the models. That is certainly part of English contract law. You'll probably find a clause somewhere in the GW legal conditions saying that disputes arising will be tried under English law.

Praise be Killkrazy, and all the divines.

sA

Wrexasaur wrote:

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:"I want it but I don't want to pay for it" isn't stealing. It's making a decision based on cost vs value. Taking something from somebody else is stealing.

That is essentially what I have been asking for pages now. Even if the melta-gun debacle means GW loses 1/10th of a penny somehow from me would hardly make me feel like any sort of thief. If these actions are truly wrong in a tangible way (theft should almost always lead to direct loss of property, that is the whole concept, food out of someone elses mouth and all that) we should be able to see GW taking some sort of noticeable loss of profit. This needs to be shown to me in actual losses before I will even consider the act of casting a melta gun is somehow inherently wrong for personal use or not.

I am essentially hearing moral, and law based debate, and I want to hear it from GW's perspective before I can make a solid judgment on this for myself. I want to know A.)If I am losing money because of this, and if so B.)How much money is being lost? (this is very important, because I can see the obvious 100% theft of an entire model based on considerable revenue losses, theoretical or not, they are based in solid fact.

You will never get an accurate figure of how much recasting might cost GW in business losses because you would have to know how many items of what type are being recasted.

No sensible recaster is going to publicly boast about knocking off large amounts of stuff. GW are obviously unable to account for the number of models they haven't sold because someone recasted them instead.

Don't forget that, as Lunahound pointed, recasting also deprives small scale bits sellers and holders of OOP models of their rights.

The idea that ripping off only a tiny amount of value is not harmful falls down if the lack of response encourages lots more people to start doing it.

For example, a woman in Japan recently was prosecuted for recharging her mobile phone at a railway station power socket. The amount of power taken was tiny, but the example could encourage thousands of people to do it, leading to quantifiable losses for the rail company.

Kilkrazy wrote:For example, a woman in Japan recently was prosecuted for recharging her mobile phone at a railway station power socket. The amount of power taken was tiny, but the example could encourage thousands of people to do it, leading to quantifiable losses for the rail company.

If the power sockets were open to the public it was the fault of the station plain and simple. Here is a water fountain, but do not drink out of it...

Hence the need for GW to sink or swim on some of their business model. Out of all the information I have gathered throughout all of these recent threads, I have a very strong sense that GW while still here now, will not last much longer. Last legs so to speak, so I am really trying to find out why they make these decisions.

A argument that one creates millions is quite lofty for me, especially for small pieces for personal use. I want to see companies like this realize their mistakes and fix them or simply sink it to the pit whence they came. I feel that this type of general double-talk with the yes, but no, but maybe on sunday, is pure nonsense when it comes to models.

It is clear to me that GW has very little knowledge of what their customers actually demand of them, and that they focus on short term profits, that look like long term plans to some. These profits come from all of their customers, not their fantastic new ideas that they boast so greatly about.

No amount of debate will convince me that these miniatures will be anything more than toys made of plastic and metal, it is simply preposterous. IMHO GW is very wrong for trying to pull this one over on people, but it could be the customers that are at fault for not caring at all, let alone enough to make a rational decision. It is that little wants is toys NOW! and if mommy doesn't buy them there is going to be big problems. Like vampires man, it is ridiculous, I really loathe the toy industry at times.

Kilkrazy wrote:recasting also deprives small scale bits sellers and holders of OOP models of their rights.

The idea that ripping off only a tiny amount of value is not harmful falls down if the lack of response encourages lots more people to start doing it.

For example, a woman in Japan recently was prosecuted for recharging her mobile phone at a railway station power socket. The amount of power taken was tiny, but the example could encourage thousands of people to do it, leading to quantifiable losses for the rail company.

Thank you T-T that is so much win .

I was never talking about moral high horse and stuff people thought i was. I only believed the moral is important as the thresh hold / line of defense
to discourage people's view from accepting a wrong doing. I color coded your example to what i wanted to say since my first post in this thread xD

In my country we call it " kill 1 person , make that as an example for the rest " which is why i tend to be seen as reacting extreme to this situation.

Lunahound wrote:In my country we call it " kill 1 person , make that as an example for the rest " which is why i tend to be seen as reacting extreme to this situation.

I call that murder, but definitions CAN be fuzzy you know...

Okay, I am not sure there is any way to make this clear if you do not understand where I am coming from.

A.) Electricity is provided free of charge at coffee-shops and all you have to do is buy a cup of Joe, which is why you are there in the first place. No double deals, and backwards "bottom liners" that belong in corporate jargon, not real life. You buy your coffee and you are good to go.

B.) If Japan has a serious problem with electricity they need to be looking SERIOUSLY into alternative means of generating/supplying their power, it isn't more complicated than that nor is there any inherent need to be.

Kilkrazy wrote:...at a railway station power socket. The amount of power taken was tiny...

I don't know about you but if I paid for a ticket for a train, I would consider any amenities to be available included in my ticket price. What I hear in this statement is some sort of national cry for efficiency that would be better placed in recycling if that is what they are really about.

Someone with a dying cell phone and an important call to make (where there is available, but "illegal" power sources) could be compared to a holding a treat just above a puppies reach, and punching it in the face if it actually grabbed the treat.

Seriously, I see some backwards stuff here, and my screen is not a mirror.

Kilkrazy wrote:For example, a woman in Japan recently was prosecuted for recharging her mobile phone at a railway station power socket. The amount of power taken was tiny, but the example could encourage thousands of people to do it, leading to quantifiable losses for the rail company.

Was she prosecuted successfully? That´s the most important part and your post didn´t make that clear.

M.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:For example, a woman in Japan recently was prosecuted for recharging her mobile phone at a railway station power socket. The amount of power taken was tiny, but the example could encourage thousands of people to do it, leading to quantifiable losses for the rail company.

If the power sockets were open to the public it was the fault of the station plain and simple. Here is a water fountain, but do not drink out of it...

...

.

The woman was walking around in a public park, wearing short skirt and a tight tee-shirt. It was her fault she got raped.

Water fountains are provided for the benefit of the travelling public. Power sockets are provided for the use of railway staff.

Kilkrazy wrote:The woman was walking around in a public park, wearing short skirt and a tight tee-shirt. It was her fault she got raped

WRONG!

Saying sex is fundamental to an individuals life is akin to saying monks are celibate, therefore lacking in an aspect of life that is standard to any animal on the planet for survival as an individual.

Besides the fact that comparing water to a woman is simple nonsense.

Kilkrazy wrote:Power sockets are provided for the use of railway staff.

In Soviet America we keep our power open or closed to the public.

A better example would be:
You own a garden store. I come in every Saturday, walk around a few hours, buy a garden gnome and leave. You notice a spike in your electricity bill. The next week you catch me plugging in my electric car into the outlet you use to power the spotlights that light up your displays.

A coffee house encourages you to use their power and wi-fi so you will hang out and buy more coffee. Its a deal unique to them, and they advertise it. That cannot be extrapolated into every business. Some bookstores allow you to relax and read their books and some say buy it or leave. Both models have been around a long time, and both are right for different scenarios.

Businesses that say "the customer is always right" generally do not stay in business very long. Some customers are far more right than others.

Miguelsan wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:For example, a woman in Japan recently was prosecuted for recharging her mobile phone at a railway station power socket. The amount of power taken was tiny, but the example could encourage thousands of people to do it, leading to quantifiable losses for the rail company.

Was she prosecuted successfully? That´s the most important part and your post didn´t make that clear.

M.

This is here so we can have some line of reasoning that will keep the thread from spinning chaotically into a place of infinite metaphors and absolutely no defined facts.

Niccolo wrote:You notice a spike in your electricity bill.

Yet again I ask another person to provide me with number verifying that the meltagun debacle actually shows these numbers. No theory mind you, numbers on paper, because if it is as real as all of you seem to think, the numbers would be there, or your point would be based purely in moral tones.

Niccolo wrote:You notice a spike in your electricity bill.

Yet again I ask another person to provide me with number verifying that the meltagun debacle actually shows these numbers. No theory mind you, numbers on paper, because if it is as real as all of you seem to think, the numbers would be there, or your point would be based purely in moral tones.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:For example, a woman in Japan recently was prosecuted for recharging her mobile phone at a railway station power socket. The amount of power taken was tiny, but the example could encourage thousands of people to do it, leading to quantifiable losses for the rail company.

Was she prosecuted successfully? That´s the most important part and your post didn´t make that clear.

M.

Sorry -- Yes, she was successfully prosecuted for theft.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Yet again I ask another person to provide me with number verifying that the meltagun debacle actually shows these numbers. No theory mind you, numbers on paper, because if it is as real as all of you seem to think, the numbers would be there, or your point would be based purely in moral tones.

That is a straw man argument. You must know that it's impossible for us to provide confirmed figures due to the reasons I gave earlier.

By insisting on this proviso which cannot be satisfied, you give yourself the excuse to say recasting does no significant harm and is therefore excusable. However, you have no more valid figures to prove that the harm done is insignificant. Would you support recasting if you knew the harm to be significant?

Kilkrazy wrote:Secondly, GW can make a contractual condition of selling their models to ou, and you can agree to this condition by the action of buying the models. That is certainly part of English contract law. You'll probably find a clause somewhere in the GW legal conditions saying that disputes arising will be tried under English law.

They could, but the problem is that they haven't. All you see on their packaging, on a Shadowsword kit,for example since it's handy is a curt declaration of copyright and trademark registration, if they want to impose more conditions, they have at least put some kind of notice, available to the customer at point of sale, that they are attaching additional terms and conditions of use to the sale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rico wrote: You've already said it's illegal numerous times. Your argument is based on the fact "I want it but I don't want to pay for it".

Actually, no it's not stealing, it's copyright infringment, -theft- has an implication usually that not only have you taken posession of something that the other has, but that in so doing, you have deprived them of the same object. GW still has their molds, and their casting machines, and theri designers, what they have been deprived of is a small portion of their legally granted control. Even if GW was -giving their bitz away free- recasting would be a copyright infringement, because it's about the loss of control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Water fountains are provided for the benefit of the travelling public. Power sockets are provided for the use of railway staff.

This is debatable, considering the number of public venues such as airports that have begun to deliberately provide outlets for public use, it's getting to the point where if such a restriction is intended, it should be announced, or public access mechanically restricted, at the convention center, where' I'm staffing a con this weekend, there are outlets that are publically available in the hallways.. In the convention center rooms, where they charge for power hookups, the power outlets are in locked panels on the floor..

Lanceradvanced wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Secondly, GW can make a contractual condition of selling their models to ou, and you can agree to this condition by the action of buying the models. That is certainly part of English contract law. You'll probably find a clause somewhere in the GW legal conditions saying that disputes arising will be tried under English law.

They could, but the problem is that they haven't. All you see on their packaging, on a Shadowsword kit,for example since it's handy is a curt declaration of copyright and trademark registration, if they want to impose more conditions, they have at least put some kind of notice, available to the customer at point of sale, that they are attaching additional terms and conditions of use to the sale.

GW's trademark/copyright notices page is interesting for a few reasons. They do have the right to control how their trademarks are used (within the normal conventions of the law on use of trademarks), so their instructions thereon are actually meaningful. As copyright holders, they can choose to waive certain of their rights, and this is the place where they can make it clear if they are (e.g., the permission for converting may be significant in Europe, where the "moral rights" of the creator of a sculpture come into play).

But no - they can't post restrictions beyond the scope of copyright on their website, without notice to their customers at time of purchase, and expect them to be enforceable. Unlike software, we don't license models, we purchase them; no hiding behind "terms of use" silliness here.

I find it disheartening that evidently people think the owner of the property in question needs to prove to someone who doesn't own it that they shouldn't mess with what isn't theirs.

It's like touching someone else's models when they told you not to, and saying they need to prove that you're increasing the chances of damaging them. It's being a jackass, and there's a reason it's against the law.

If people were arguing that they have a right to recast their purchase for some reason it would be different.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Yet again I ask another person to provide me with number verifying that the meltagun debacle actually shows these numbers.

Yet again, I point out how stupid this request is. If GW publicized their numbers, you wouldn't need to ask us. Lack of numbers does not prove anything either way, other than that the company, wisely, like all other companies, doesn't disclose this data to the public.

You keep saying "show me numbers". Either you're doing it because you have nothing of any relevance to add to the conversation, or you're trying to draw some sort of false conclusion backed up by a lack of numbers. Either way, it's pointless noise. No one is going to be able to show you numbers. You're right, the whole discussion is based on the theory of what is right and what is intellectual property.

Lanceradvanced wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Secondly, GW can make a contractual condition of selling their models to ou, and you can agree to this condition by the action of buying the models. That is certainly part of English contract law. You'll probably find a clause somewhere in the GW legal conditions saying that disputes arising will be tried under English law.

They could, but the problem is that they haven't. All you see on their packaging, on a Shadowsword kit,for example since it's handy is a curt declaration of copyright and trademark registration, if they want to impose more conditions, they have at least put some kind of notice, available to the customer at point of sale, that they are attaching additional terms and conditions of use to the sale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rico wrote: You've already said it's illegal numerous times. Your argument is based on the fact "I want it but I don't want to pay for it".

Actually, no it's not stealing, it's copyright infringment, -theft- has an implication usually that not only have you taken posession of something that the other has, but that in so doing, you have deprived them of the same object. GW still has their molds, and their casting machines, and theri designers, what they have been deprived of is a small portion of their legally granted control. Even if GW was -giving their bitz away free- recasting would be a copyright infringement, because it's about the loss of control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Water fountains are provided for the benefit of the travelling public. Power sockets are provided for the use of railway staff.

This is debatable, considering the number of public venues such as airports that have begun to deliberately provide outlets for public use, it's getting to the point where if such a restriction is intended, it should be announced, or public access mechanically restricted, at the convention center, where' I'm staffing a con this weekend, there are outlets that are publically available in the hallways.. In the convention center rooms, where they charge for power hookups, the power outlets are in locked panels on the floor..

It's not debatable. A woman was arrested, charged and convicted of stealing electricity from the railway company. Go and debate your point with the Japanese Ministry of Justice and see how far you get.

There are various places where power sockets are provided for public use, such as in some coffee shops, and some trains. These are always notified.

Wrex , im not sure if you are seeing the bigger picture regarding the women stealing the power socket on the train station.

Sure , it was probably meant to be used during emergency if someones battery run out at a bad time.

BUT its not meant to be taken advantaged of ( for example using that train socket on purpose while not charging it at home with your own socket )

Now supposedly she got away with it , what do you think will happen next? every public socket ( lets expand that ) every public benefit offering things can be exploited.

Every case have its details and variant situations , if the rules arnt strict about something , do you think they have the time to waste on investigating all these cases?
small as they may seem , it'll all add up , in different situations . And end up as a toll on the city's $$$

LunaHound wrote:Wrex , im not sure if you are seeing the bigger picture regarding the women stealing the power socket on the train station.

Sure , it was probably meant to be used during emergency if someones battery run out at a bad time.

BUT its not meant to be taken advantaged of ( for example using that train socket on purpose while not charging it at home with your own socket )

Now supposedly she got away with it , what do you think will happen next? every public socket ( lets expand that ) every public benefit offering things can be exploited.

Every case have its details and variant situations , if the rules arnt strict about something , do you think they have the time to waste on investigating all these cases?
small as they may seem , it'll all add up , in different situations . And end up as a toll on the city's $$$

Out of curiosity LunaHound what is that pic in your sig? Did you create it? If not do you have permission to use it?

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

CT GAMER wrote:
Out of curiosity LunaHound what is that pic in your sig? Did you create it? If not do you have permission to use it?

Yes as long as i dont claim ownership of it as its creator or redistribute it for profit

and no nice try , this example would work better if say , you ask me if i have permission to be running around with a printed picture.

Kilkrazy wrote: There are various places where power sockets are provided for public use, such as in some coffee shops, and some trains. These are always notified.

No, they're not allways notified, which is why beyond the specific instance it -is- debateable, what may fly in japan, may not in the US, or elsewhere.

Also.. according to this http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/09/12/girl-arrested-for-charging-phone/ - "Police issued a reprimand, but did not consider her crime grievous enough to prosecute, treating it as a minor offence."

chromedog wrote:It is possible to be 'not wrong' but not right, either

At times, I find that to be the pardoxical definition of my customers' behaviour. Sometimes, they are clearly not right but if I tell them they are wrong, then I can potentially lose their business...and they think Politics only happens in Washington.

Kilkrazy wrote:Would you support recasting if you knew the harm to be significant?

Of course not Kilkrazy, that is what I am trying to figure out here. I do not support full model casts for a lot of reasons, but I have a really hard time offending someone by just calling them an outright thief if it is for personal use.

I may have a different opinion than some of you on this, the fact still remains that theft results in the loss of property (which can include money). By saying that my argument is a straw man argument you are sticking to moral guns, and I simply will not accept what you say as fact by default due to that.

GW does not list pennies for a reason, and that is the point I am trying to make here, my judgment tells me that they are hardly losing more than a few dollars. People buying the melta-gun bits are usually going to have a very large army to begin with, hence needing so many in the first place. In this situation where you need bulk amount comparatively to one or two squads worth, I most definitely see where you are coming from.

I will still not accept that you are right because of theory, and I would argue that you are in fact wrong.

Pennies don't make a man, dollars do, and if a penny is cut in half it does not become a half-penny.

Lunahound wrote:BUT its not meant to be taken advantaged of ( for example using that train socket on purpose while not charging it at home with your own socket )

This is little more than moralistic jargon, things that are tangible such as a electric socket, are MORE than simple enough to simply lock up. This whole "You need to" thing just makes me ask questions, and I have already found answers.

There are a million and a half ways to accomplish this, and it really would not be a serious issue until people made a huge habit of it, hence just keeping them off limits.

Another thing is was there a sign clearly saying that it was for station attendant use only? Besides the fact that I would find a sign pointing to an open socket saying DO NOT USE ME a practical joke, the stations are clearly at more fault than they would like to admit on this one.

"Note"
I would like to point out that Japan has officially had panty machines okay... like as in underwear vending machines, so yeah...

So taking someone else's money is justified by it being a "couple of bucks"?

Also, you continue to place the burden of proof on the owner of the property, which just doesn't make sense. It's their property (isn't it?), they don't have try to appease people who don't have a claim to it, to whatever standards those people feel is necessary. That's ludicrous.

So taking someone else's money is justified by it being a "couple of bucks"?

If my portion of it represents literal fractions of a penny, yes.

Also, you continue to place the burden of proof on the owner of the property, which just doesn't make sense.

Who else is going to prove it, the thieves? Your logic confuses me.

"Note"
In case you all did not know I play Eldar NOT space marines okay.

And what evidence do you have for it costing the business so little?

Dude, that is what I am trying to find out, I am not a lawyer, I am just a Joe Shmoe asking sensible questions.

Wrexasaur wrote:Who else is going to prove it, the thieves? Your logic confuses me.

By burden of proof, I mean the proof that it's damaging.

What it seems like you're saying is that the person owning the property should have to prove to the person who has no claim to the property that it shouldn't be used for whatever purpose the person without the claim to the property wants it to be used for. And that it's entirely up to the person who has no claim to the property to decide if they think it's sufficient proof to stop them from using the property anyway.

For example, if Person A said "don't touch my models, they might break" to Person B. Person B responds with "prove that there's a significant chance that I'll break them". Person A says "it happens some of the time, and I don't want you to touch them". Person B says "that proof's not good enough for me", and proceeds to touch Person A's models anyways.

Wrexasaur wrote:Another thing is was there a sign clearly saying that it was for station attendant use only? Besides the fact that I would find a sign pointing to an open socket saying DO NOT USE ME a practical joke, the stations are clearly at more fault than they would like to admit on this one.

I find this attitude rather astounding, to be honest.

While the station might be seen to be 'at fault' for safety reasons, how does having an uncovered socket constitute permission for you to use it?

A train station isn't in the business of providing you with electricity. They're providing public transport. Any service other than directly related to getting you from that platform to the next would have to be specifically offered. You can't just assume that everything within a 50 meter radius of the platform is there solely for your benefit.

Frankly, without a sign explicitly stating that power sockets are provided for commuter use, I'd put plugging yourself in about on par with stealing the light bulbs, or wandering into the ticket office to use their computer.

insaniak wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Another thing is was there a sign clearly saying that it was for station attendant use only? Besides the fact that I would find a sign pointing to an open socket saying DO NOT USE ME a practical joke, the stations are clearly at more fault than they would like to admit on this one.

I find this attitude rather astounding, to be honest.

While the station might be seen to be 'at fault' for safety reasons, how does having an uncovered socket constitute permission for you to use it?

A train station isn't in the business of providing you with electricity They're providing public transport. Any service other than directly related to getting you from that platform to the next would have to be specifically offered. You can't just assume that everything within a 50 meter radius of the platform is there solely for your benefit.

Frankly, without a sign explicitly stating that power sockets are provided for commuter use, I'd put plugging yourself in about on par with stealing the light bulbs, or wandering into the ticket office to use their computer.

Nod nod

LunaHound wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
Out of curiosity LunaHound what is that pic in your sig? Did you create it? If not do you have permission to use it?

Yes as long as i dont claim ownership of it as its creator or redistribute it for profit

and no nice try , this example would work better if say , you ask me if i have permission to be running around with a printed picture.

So, as long as I don't claim ownership of the re-cast meltagun as it creator or redistribute it for profit, I'm okay? The images you're using are COPYRIGHTED, Luna. Unless you have permission from the artist to use them or they were explicitly posted in the public domain, you're STEALING them. Does this argument sound familiar? Oh, the hypocrisy...

the_Armyman wrote:The images you're using are COPYRIGHTED, Luna. Unless you have permission from the artist to use them or they were explicitly posted in the public domain, you're STEALING them. Does this argument sound familiar? Oh, the hypocrisy...

To be fair, a lot of websites do in fact provide images that they allow people to use. It's a bit premature to be calling hypocrisy without knowing whether or not that's the case for whichever site that image originally came from...

insaniak wrote:Frankly, without a sign explicitly stating that power sockets are provided for commuter use, I'd put plugging yourself in about on par with stealing the light bulbs, or wandering into the ticket office to use their computer.

Or like plugging your laptop into the socket on the pillar by the row of seats in the airport terminal, to log on while waiting for a plane, just to illustrate how these things can get a little gray.

Or for another, I work in a bookstore.. we advertise wi-fi. We don't have statements -one way or another- about plugging in, but we'd be fairly stupid to prohibit it, because we'd loose customers. As personal electronics become more and more ubiqitious, such things are slowly becoming expected ammenties in public areas - especially areas where folks are expected to spend their time waiting. We are in a social grey zone where neither the prohibition or expectation of use is a given, hence the need for specification untill the norm has stabilized.

insaniak wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:The images you're using are COPYRIGHTED, Luna. Unless you have permission from the artist to use them or they were explicitly posted in the public domain, you're STEALING them. Does this argument sound familiar? Oh, the hypocrisy...

To be fair, a lot of websites do in fact provide images that they allow people to use. It's a bit premature to be calling hypocrisy without knowing whether or not that's the case for whichever site that image originally came from...

Wise and smart , difference of a Dakka *2 veteran

Lanceradvanced wrote:Or like plugging your laptop into the socket on the pillar by the row of seats in the airport terminal, to log on while waiting for a plane, just to illustrate how these things can get a little gray.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how that's any different, unless the airport has signs saying that you can use those sockets.

Or for another, I work in a bookstore.. we advertise wi-fi. We don't have statements -one way or another- about plugging in, but we'd be fairly stupid to prohibit it, because we'd loose customers.

Even with advertised WiFi, it would never even occur to me that a store, cafe, whatever would have power sockets for my use as a customer.

Maybe it's just a US thing... I don't think that offering such a service would actually even be allowed down here since, as I understand it, anything that gets plugged into a socket on business premises is supposed to be checked and approved by an electrician. Although that may just be an insurance thing, rather than a legal thing.

insaniak wrote:

Lanceradvanced wrote:Or like plugging your laptop into the socket on the pillar by the row of seats in the airport terminal, to log on while waiting for a plane, just to illustrate how these things can get a little gray.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how that's any different, unless the airport has signs saying that you can use those sockets.
\

Again , i agree with insaniak .

Because i go to air ports often i know they have special designated wait rooms made just for that purpose. ( though i dont have a lap top , i just sit in there for the air condition rofl )

LunaHound wrote:

insaniak wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:The images you're using are COPYRIGHTED, Luna. Unless you have permission from the artist to use them or they were explicitly posted in the public domain, you're STEALING them. Does this argument sound familiar? Oh, the hypocrisy...

To be fair, a lot of websites do in fact provide images that they allow people to use. It's a bit premature to be calling hypocrisy without knowing whether or not that's the case for whichever site that image originally came from...

Wise and smart , difference of a Dakka *2 veteran

Fair enough. Where did you get the images from, Luna?

Luna is an Afghan warlord, who sells bootlegged movies and space marine recasts to buy more guns.

She also cuts your ear off if you steal her electricity.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Would you support recasting if you knew the harm to be significant?

Of course not Kilkrazy, that is what I am trying to figure out here. I do not support full model casts for a lot of reasons, but I have a really hard time offending someone by just calling them an outright thief if it is for personal use.

I may have a different opinion than some of you on this, the fact still remains that theft results in the loss of property (which can include money). By saying that my argument is a straw man argument you are sticking to moral guns, and I simply will not accept what you say as fact by default due to that.

...
...

I have pointed out several times that copyright violation is only theft under certain circumstances (such as some DCMA clauses.) That does not mean it is right behaviour. It is an offence under law, and has moral implications in the deprivation of legitimate artists of the benefits of their labours.

You keep asking for figures, so I assume you've put some thought into that kind of detail.
What level of harm is acceptable for recasting?
How would you quantify it?
Would you judge it on a moral or a practical basis?
Would you consider the effect on 3rd parties as well as GW?
How would you divide the free harm allowance between recasters?

What level of harm is acceptable for recasting?

None, I would hope; but this is a very broad question that would cover a lot of GW products to varying degrees.

How would you quantify it?

By "harm" I would assume means loss of profits, mainly because a corporations only human-like trait is to "survive", which they accomplish through various means.

Would you judge it on a moral or a practical basis?

Practical. All other aspects of this debate seem to be nearly intangible to a degree that is unacceptably manipulable.

Would you consider the effect on 3rd parties as well as GW?

GW is the focus in this discussion because it is their product, anything beyond that is nearly irrelevant to how it effects GW. GW is the "person" that may or may not be at a loss in profit due to these actions.

How would you divide the free harm allowance between recasters?

Define "free harm" please.

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?

Wrexasaur wrote:

What level of harm is acceptable for recasting?

None, I would hope; but this is a very broad question that would cover a lot of GW products to varying degrees.

How would you quantify it?

By "harm" I would assume means loss of profits, mainly because a corporations only human-like trait is to "survive", which they accomplish through various means.

Would you judge it on a moral or a practical basis?

Practical. All other aspects of this debate seem to be nearly intangible to a degree that is unacceptably manipulable.

Would you consider the effect on 3rd parties as well as GW?

GW is the focus in this discussion because it is their product, anything beyond that is nearly irrelevant to how it effects GW. GW is the "person" that may or may not be at a loss in profit due to these actions.

How would you divide the free harm allowance between recasters?

Define "free harm" please.

Free Harm is the amount of money you decide it is acceptable for GW to lose in sales because of recasting, and no legal consequences are to be visited upon the recasters.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

-OR-

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

Very thoughtful post.

I often think that forcing people to obey the law is pointless. People do not like being compelled to do anything. The way to get people to obey the law is to get them to want to obey it from the dictates of their own conscience.

One way of doing that is to show people that it is in their own best interests for everyone to obey the law, because it solves or avoids various kinds of problems.

In the case of recasting, some people focus on their personal situation and don't think their $20 worth of meltaguns are going to cause any real harm, so they see no problem with doing it.

Kilkrazy wrote:Free Harm is the amount of money you decide it is acceptable for GW to lose in sales because of recasting, and no legal consequences are to be visited upon the recasters.

Kilkrazy wrote:How would you divide the free harm allowance between recasters?

If the total loss is around 100 dollars spread among all of GW's customers, you get a "moral" debt of none.

By not taking direct action to stop people from adding to your loss as a GW customer, you are inevitably a part of the whole.

None: the day I can spend/invest fractions of pennies and turn any sort of real profit (not in the next century mind you, within my lifetime please) is the day that I own the entire universe.

Direct action: by enforcing (screaming at the managers about these thieves until you are blue in the face) GW's most severe IP rules, you will be taking direct action.

I thought morals had already been discounted.

I am interested in the practicalities of your plan.

What if there are $1,000,000 worth of recast products being made each year?

Kilkrazy wrote:What if there are $1,000,000 worth of recast products being made each year?

Then I would be happy to not be a part of it.

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought morals had already been discounted.

Wrex wrote:...you get a "moral" debt of none...

None: the day I can spend/invest fractions of pennies and turn any sort of real profit (not in the next century mind you, within my lifetime please) is the day that I own the entire universe.

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?

Very nicely put Manchu. To put it bluntly, not everyone will agree on everything in the subject of morals Unfortunately, some people seem to think that if you disagree with their sense of morals, you must be a bad person, regardless of whether you disagree with those morals on your own logical grounds. They would rather believe that you disagree with them for the sole purpose of personal gain, than because you may have a different view of the world and law to them, and as such, label you with the use of absurd analogies.

insaniak wrote:To be fair, a lot of websites do in fact provide images that they allow people to use. It's a bit premature to be calling hypocrisy without knowing whether or not that's the case for whichever site that image originally came from...

Which would have been much easier to determine if she'd posted where she'd gotten them from, as opposed to the terms that she's allegedly gotten them under (I'd be much less suspicious, if she hadn't ducked giving the artist credit when she answered, doubly so, because forum avatars are the single greatest source of image theft I encounter from my website)

LunaHound wrote:

insaniak wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:The images you're using are COPYRIGHTED, Luna. Unless you have permission from the artist to use them or they were explicitly posted in the public domain, you're STEALING them. Does this argument sound familiar? Oh, the hypocrisy...

To be fair, a lot of websites do in fact provide images that they allow people to use. It's a bit premature to be calling hypocrisy without knowing whether or not that's the case for whichever site that image originally came from...

Wise and smart , difference of a Dakka *2 veteran

I'm sure you have permission to use said images. Could you kindly point me to the location that gives said permission for the pics you use?

If you're not doing to resell, just keep your gob shut and get on with it. This way it makes no odds if people agree or disagree... they won't know about it! Any other option means you're just looking for attention or an argument.

Ketara wrote:
Very nicely put Manchu. To put it bluntly, not everyone will agree on everything in the subject of morals Unfortunately, some people seem to think that if you disagree with their sense of morals, you must be a bad person, regardless of whether you disagree with those morals on your own logical grounds. They would rather believe that you disagree with them for the sole purpose of personal gain, than because you may have a different view of the world and law to them, and as such, label you with the use of absurd analogies.

How wishy-washy.

I call it as I see it. I don't believe that it's acceptable to mutilate someone's genitals, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe that it's acceptable to have sex with children, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe it's acceptable to eat my own species, even though some cultures do. And I don't believe that it's acceptable to steal intellectual property, even though some people apparently do. You're welcome to your alternative morality if it helps you sleep better at night. Don't expect me to consider you a decent person though. I don't buy into this self-righteous moral relativity that's nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at justifying criminal activity for personal gain.

Redbeard wrote:I call it as I see it. I don't believe that it's acceptable to mutilate someone's genitals, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe that it's acceptable to have sex with children, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe it's acceptable to eat my own species, even though some cultures do. And I don't believe that it's acceptable to steal intellectual property, even though some people apparently do. You're welcome to your alternative morality if it helps you sleep better at night. Don't expect me to consider you a decent person though. I don't buy into this self-righteous moral relativity that's nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at justifying criminal activity for personal gain.

Ooo burn!

Seriously though, how many of the people with a "different view on morality" are actually in a position to lose something they have under their new "system"?

Modquisition on:
I was about to pop on and congratulate everyone on 16 pages without warnings, suspensions, etc.

Lets keep iup the good work and maintain civilness guys.

16 pages? wow...

Ketara wrote:

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?

Very nicely put Manchu. To put it bluntly, not everyone will agree on everything in the subject of morals Unfortunately, some people seem to think that if you disagree with their sense of morals, you must be a bad person, regardless of whether you disagree with those morals on your own logical grounds. They would rather believe that you disagree with them for the sole purpose of personal gain, than because you may have a different view of the world and law to them, and as such, label you with the use of absurd analogies.

Agreed. Just because someone recasts a meltagun imo does not give people the license to be a bigot and label people as thieves or any other kind of derogatory nonsense. Just because someone doesn't fix up their old Mustang with genuine Ford parts doesn't mean that its "wrong" although this example like most in this thread aren't EXACTLY identical to whats really being talked about.

Manchu wrote: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?

I, too, did my time in political thought classes. I have studied and discussed all the models of society and law you discussed, and others as well. And, perhaps like Dr. Pangloss, I am convinced that we are in the best of all possible systems.

Why? Results. My philosophy is downright Darwinian here - nothing succeeds like success.

True communism (read: "commune-ism") as taught in the Bible has never been successfully implemented on any significant scale. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism turned out to be an excuse for authoritarianism, and not especially successful authoritarianism at that. No nation-state is organized as a pure democracy. No functional nation-state lacks the concept of private property. Those "countries" which rely purely on force yield terrifying stories of mass rape and murder (looking at you, Somalia).

Respect for the legal process is a unifying force, and it keeps society functioning on a local, national, and global scale. Yes, the law can be (and often is) a coercive force, but I reject the thought that most people are constrained solely from that coercive nature. Deep down, we're all lonely, scared, little monkeys, and the existence of a legal system which means I don't have to fear you when I meet you lets us get past the first few ranks of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and down into the important things, like playing with little men (which have been obtained legitimately).

Cane wrote:
Agreed. Just because someone recasts a meltagun imo does not give people the license to be a bigot and label people as thieves or any other kind of derogatory nonsense.

I am not sure you understand the term bigot.

Wikipedia states:

A bigot is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.[1] Bigotry is the corresponding mindset or action.

The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animus toward those of differing devotion.

Note "irrationality". My views are based on rational thought. I make my living creating Intellectual Property. If people seriously believe that it is ok to steal intellectual property, then my livelihood is at stake. The fact that a meltagun is perhaps only one day's worth of design work is no more relevant than the fact that a candy bar costs about 5 cents to make. No one in this thread has claimed that stealing a candybar, or shoplifting other petty items that have no impact on one's survival is a moral thing to do. And yet, when it comes to stealing intellectual property, there's a group of people out there who believe that because they want something, they have a right to just take it, and their defense for their ideals are that GW won't sell it to them at a price they like, and that GW isn't losing all that much when they do it.

That's not alternative morality, that's justification of selfish action. They have a right to believe it if they want. I have a right to consider them thieves and immoral people.

Semantics, schematics. I see your Wiki definition and raise you one from merriam-webster.com:

Bigot:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Which the anti recasting camp definitely looks like to me.

Not sure why you keep bringing up the candybar example; recasting an item that you originally bought is not the same thing as 'petty' shoplifting.

The tone, time, and language used indicates to me that this discussion is more than just whats at face value and I'll leave it at that.

I have no problem with people trying to make their own replica of a classic or exotic car. Same deal with models about 'em; its this similar line of thought that I extent to recasting.

Also have no problem with people trying to homebrew their favorite kind of beer and making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

Cane wrote:making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

Thats a horrible analogy tbh.

Thanks for your contribution

Cane wrote:Thanks for your contribution

When someone make copies of their CD / DVDs tell me the reasons they do it for.
and
When someone make copies of minis , tell me the reasons they do it for.

Im sure you'll see the difference

So they can have more than one copy of each.

Cane wrote:So they can have more than one copy of each.

K , lets look at it with more detail.

For what reasons does the 2 cases have for wanting more than 1 copy

Janthkin wrote:Respect for the legal process is a unifying force, and it keeps society functioning on a local, national, and global scale. Yes, the law can be (and often is) a coercive force, but I reject the thought that most people are constrained solely from that coercive nature. Deep down, we're all lonely, scared, little monkeys, and the existence of a legal system which means I don't have to fear you when I meet you lets us get past the first few ranks of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and down into the important things, like playing with little men (which have been obtained legitimately).

I'm a bit confused. You are saying that there are reasons to obey the law other than fear of coercive force. But your example is based on a calculus of fear: it is better to have to be afraid of one group (the government) rather than all groups. I suspect that you are more like Pangloss than you recognize.

How about you just write what you want to see and save us both some time - directed to the anime person

How do you feel about GW staff writing articles about recasting GW bitz? Or the fact that molding/casting has been a part of the model-making/wargaming hobby longer than GW's or Citadel's been around?

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on:
I was about to pop on and congratulate everyone on 16 pages without warnings, suspensions, etc.

Lets keep iup the good work and maintain civilness guys.

16 pages? wow...

You should look at the 27 pages I had to delete.

Just joking.

Cane wrote:How about you just write what you want to see and save us both some time

I rather not . Because unlike most people , been told yes im right means nothing to me.
I perfer to break things down layer by layer to figure out how this whole thing turn into such a mess.

We can get back to :

For what reasons does the 2 cases have for wanting more than 1 copy

But if you dont feel like it , thats fine too. (If you do choose to get to the botton of this with me , im sure you'll see this
whole thing in a whole new perspective )

Luna it does feel like you're trying to skirt around than actually talk about my main points. That CD/DVD example is just one of many that I listed and was used to deliver a point rather than be the point.

Feel free to point out how you feel about the other examples I quoted though, although I do agree that they are far from perfect just like most analogies since its going to be a bit tough finding a perfect example:

I have no problem with people trying to make their own replica of a classic or exotic car. Same deal with models about 'em; its this similar line of thought that I extent to recasting.

Also have no problem with people trying to homebrew their favorite kind of beer and making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

So far I can't help but agree with Manchu and Ketara.

Manchu wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Respect for the legal process is a unifying force, and it keeps society functioning on a local, national, and global scale. Yes, the law can be (and often is) a coercive force, but I reject the thought that most people are constrained solely from that coercive nature. Deep down, we're all lonely, scared, little monkeys, and the existence of a legal system which means I don't have to fear you when I meet you lets us get past the first few ranks of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and down into the important things, like playing with little men (which have been obtained legitimately).

I'm a bit confused. You are saying that there are reasons to obey the law other than fear of coercive force. But your example is based on a calculus of fear: it is better to have to be afraid of one group (the government) rather than all groups. I suspect that you are more like Pangloss than you recognize.

It's not "Obey the law or face punishment." It's "Collective agreement to obey the law means we don't have to fear anyone bigger/stronger/with better weapons than me."

Less fear of coercive force, more belief in a social contract.

Janthkin wrote:Less fear of coercive force, more belief in a social contract.

I doubt we will ever agree on two points: the existence of a social contract and the legitimacy of absolute or near-absolute private property.

Cane wrote:Semantics, schematics. I see your Wiki definition and raise you one from merriam-webster.com:

Bigot:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Which the anti recasting camp definitely looks like to me.

Not sure why you keep bringing up the candybar example; recasting an item that you originally bought is not the same thing as 'petty' shoplifting.

The tone, time, and language used indicates to me that this discussion is more than just whats at face value and I'll leave it at that.

I have no problem with people trying to make their own replica of a classic or exotic car. Same deal with models about 'em; its this similar line of thought that I extent to recasting.

Also have no problem with people trying to homebrew their favorite kind of beer and making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

What is your point, exactly?

I will freely admit to be intolerant of people who knowingly and willfully break the law. This extends to shoplifters and murderers, as well as recasters. I don't hate them, nor do I especially think I treat them with hatred. I suspect you'll find most people are intolerant of murderers; does that make everyone bigoted against murderers? If so, is that a bad thing?

Homebrewing of beer is an inapplicable example. Unless you've managed to get your hands on Miller's (trade secret) recipe, you're not going to be infringing any of their rights by brewing. Pouring your brew into their bottles and selling it, though, is going to get you into trouble.

Copying of CDs is an inapplicable example; you have the appropriate rights to do so, unless you start giving copies away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Less fear of coercive force, more belief in a social contract.

I doubt we will ever agree on two points: the existence of a social contract and the legitimacy of absolute or near-absolute private property.

Perhaps not. Fortunately for me, my position is perhaps a little closer to the current situation.

Head over to Adepticon in 2010, though, and I'll use some of my absolute private property to procure for you a beer.

Redbeard wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Very nicely put Manchu. To put it bluntly, not everyone will agree on everything in the subject of morals Unfortunately, some people seem to think that if you disagree with their sense of morals, you must be a bad person, regardless of whether you disagree with those morals on your own logical grounds. They would rather believe that you disagree with them for the sole purpose of personal gain, than because you may have a different view of the world and law to them, and as such, label you with the use of absurd analogies.

How wishy-washy.

I call it as I see it. I don't believe that it's acceptable to mutilate someone's genitals, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe that it's acceptable to have sex with children, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe it's acceptable to eat my own species, even though some cultures do. And I don't believe that it's acceptable to steal intellectual property, even though some people apparently do. You're welcome to your alternative morality if it helps you sleep better at night. Don't expect me to consider you a decent person though. I don't buy into this self-righteous moral relativity that's nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at justifying criminal activity for personal gain.

You know, the beauty of this post is that I can copy and paste it, with only two modifications.

-Change, 'acceptable to steal intellectual property' to 'acceptable to be uncivil to other users online', and
-'justifying criminal activity for personal gain' to 'justifying forcing my own unwanted version of morality on other people'

'How wishy-washy.

I call it as I see it. I don't believe that it's acceptable to mutilate someone's genitals, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe that it's acceptable to have sex with children, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe it's acceptable to eat my own species, even though some cultures do. And I don't believe that it's acceptable to acceptable to be uncivil to other users online, even though some people apparently do. You're welcome to your alternative morality if it helps you sleep better at night. Don't expect me to consider you a decent person though. I don't buy into this self-righteous moral relativity that's nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at justifying forcing my own unwanted version of morality on other people'

The debates moved on. If you're so insistent that I'm a thief, then fair enough, that's your view. But I don't believe I should have to tolerate you pushing this view on me every time I make a post. Please stop now. Thank you.

So on Dakka right now we have a thread in which someone is advertising a product they are selling that is based on GW IP. We can talk circles around fact that he is sculpting/scratch building, etc., etc. but we all know what it is and where he got the idea and what it is suppose dot be used for. So he is selling something that is based off GW IP. Does he have a license to do so? I'm guessing that people might buy this kit instead of some superheavy that GW or FW offers, so isn't it the same issue of taking money from GW's coffers and using IP without permission?


I have no issue with it personally, I'm just curious to hear Lunahound and the rest of the morally pure expound some more...

CT GAMER wrote:
I have no issue with it personally, I'm just curious to hear Lunahound and the rest of the morally pure expound some more...

Im assuming you are talking about chapter house?

Are you seriously telling me what chapter house is doing is the same line as someone taking an existing bit of melta to recast it directly?

Hm dot dot dot lets see...

Chapter House:
We sculpt / produce items that are shadyly close to 40k chapters ( If CH use existing GW products , recasts it , and claim it to be something else ,
then yes its like all the bad recasters ) They are shady because we know what the products are inteded for , but ultimately they still made it from scratch
instead of a direct straight rip off/ recast .

vs

Counterfeit casters:
We stick the exact product in to be recasted , for exactly what it is.

Do i think Chapter House is clever? Yes i do.
Do i think they'll get away with it? No , it'll end up the same result as those Castle Titans ( forgot the company name )

Actually, the man has a good point. Chapterhouse are making money out of GW's universe, that writers worked hard creating. Technically, they're in breach of the copyright law too, I think. Even if they do have a lawyer that says otherwise.

Janthkin wrote:

Cane wrote:Semantics, schematics. I see your Wiki definition and raise you one from merriam-webster.com:

Bigot:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Which the anti recasting camp definitely looks like to me.

Not sure why you keep bringing up the candybar example; recasting an item that you originally bought is not the same thing as 'petty' shoplifting.

The tone, time, and language used indicates to me that this discussion is more than just whats at face value and I'll leave it at that.

I have no problem with people trying to make their own replica of a classic or exotic car. Same deal with models about 'em; its this similar line of thought that I extent to recasting.

Also have no problem with people trying to homebrew their favorite kind of beer and making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

What is your point, exactly?

I will freely admit to be intolerant of people who knowingly and willfully break the law. This extends to shoplifters and murderers, as well as recasters. I don't hate them, nor do I especially think I treat them with hatred. I suspect you'll find most people are intolerant of murderers; does that make everyone bigoted against murderers? If so, is that a bad thing?

Homebrewing of beer is an inapplicable example. Unless you've managed to get your hands on Miller's (trade secret) recipe, you're not going to be infringing any of their rights by brewing. Pouring your brew into their bottles and selling it, though, is going to get you into trouble.

Copying of CDs is an inapplicable example; you have the appropriate rights to do so, unless you start giving copies away.

My point is that this is nothing worth getting worked over for especially to the point of people generalizing and labeling eachother with derogatory terms but I will admit of calling anti-recasters bigots (specifically those that call the opposing side thieves for instance).

However when the other camp starts to equate recasting with murders and the like I do have to wonder how those cogs in other people's heads seem to work. That kind of extreme-ism especially against your fellow wargamer seems counter productive to legitimate discussion.

Imo this is just another venue for haters to hate ala what Manchu and Ketara wrote. Just because something is law or written by GW as such doesn't mean they hold much weight as evident by the articles and recasting methods GW staff have done.

Would you have a moral problem with someone trying to build or fix up a classic Mustang even though they don't give a dime to Ford?

This type of issue also reminds me of some lawsuits involving military equipment/vehicle manufactureres trying to sue model companies since they don't give them royalties for using that design; does this type of recasting hate extend towards Tamiya and Revell who never spent a penny to the miltiary for their model success?

Hypothetical situation: A customer buys a GW model kit but accidentally breaks a meltagun to the point of it being useless. However the customer has access to a meltagun mold; would this person still be in the "wrong" if they exercised to use the mold for their situation?

Lots of shades of gray here than the clear-cut way GW lawyers try to make it out to be; although you can't really fault legal people for trying to do their job.

Cane wrote:Semantics, schematics. I see your Wiki definition and raise you one from merriam-webster.com:

Bigot:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Which the anti recasting camp definitely looks like to me.

Not sure why you keep bringing up the candybar example; recasting an item that you originally bought is not the same thing as 'petty' shoplifting.

The tone, time, and language used indicates to me that this discussion is more than just whats at face value and I'll leave it at that.

I have no problem with people trying to make their own replica of a classic or exotic car. Same deal with models about 'em; its this similar line of thought that I extent to recasting.

Also have no problem with people trying to homebrew their favorite kind of beer and making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

You have a pretty selective way of reading threads.

Firstly, the so-called 'anti-recasting camp' are devoted to the legals laws of modern civilisation, not their own prejudices.

Secondly, the pro-recasting group are united not by religion, race or other belief but simply by their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

It's not up to you to have a problem or not to have a problem about people copying stuff, unless it's your stuff. Society as a whole has already decided that copying stuff without permissoin is wrong. You as a creator can allow people to copy your own stuff, and you have no rights over someone else's stuff.

Janthkin wrote:Perhaps not. Fortunately for me, my position is perhaps a little closer to the current situation.

Head over to Adepticon in 2010, though, and I'll use some of my absolute private property to procure for you a beer.

I hope that your position, which seems actually grounded in imminent fairness despite your description of its theoretical premises, is closer to the current situation than the situation that I am criticizing. And I'll buy you a beer back in recognition of the universal destination of goods.

Cane wrote:
Hypothetical situation: A customer buys a GW model kit but accidentally breaks a meltagun to the point of it being useless. However the customer has access to a meltagun mold; would this person still be in the "wrong" if they exercised to use the mold for their situation?

Thats VERY different then what was originally talked about " recasting melta gun because its too expensive to buy the rest "

Which is why the WHOLE moral issue was brought in.

Because there is 1 possibility of the person will just cast ONE meltagun to replace the broken one.
while the same situation someone can just cast 20 of their whole army
and FINALLY the same situation someone can just as easily cast 20000 and make profit from extras.

Political theory mixed with gaming? My birthday isn't until next month guys.

Mine is today!

LunaHound wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I have no issue with it personally, I'm just curious to hear Lunahound and the rest of the morally pure expound some more...

Im assuming you are talking about chapter house?

Are you seriously telling me what chapter house is doing is the same line as someone taking an existing bit of melta to recast it directly?

Hm dot dot dot lets see...

Chapter House:
We sculpt / produce items that are shadyly close to 40k chapters ( If CH use existing GW products , recasts it , and claim it to be something else ,
then yes its like all the bad recasters ) They are shady because we know what the products are inteded for , but ultimately they still made it from scratch
instead of a direct straight rip off/ recast .

vs

Counterfeit casters:
We stick the exact product in to be recasted , for exactly what it is.

Do i think Chapter House is clever? Yes i do.
Do i think they'll get away with it? No , it'll end up the same result as those Castle Titans ( forgot the company name )

I'm talking about the Titan thread, but chapter house is similar. Both are making money off someone elses IP if you wanna boil it down, they are just doing so by working the system and any loopholes/allowances. They are profiting off the work/IP/populatiry of GW to make money with products they change just enough to claim legal ambiguity.

. How is this any better then myself casting a couple of extra melta guns for myself off the one I bought to use in my army or put on the squad i just bought from GW? I'm making a few copy components to add to models I have or will purchase from GW, they are making an income off of spoofing IP...

Luna, I definitely agree that selling recasted stuff and parading them as official stuff is wrong; don't get me wrong there. However I was under the impression that this is about recasting in general and for personal use I've got no beef with it. From the OP throughout the thread this has been somewhat a conglomeration of issues all revolving around the general idea of recasting.

Same deal with if you like to grow and smoke marijuana; sure there are legal ways to get it and its largely illegal - but that doesn't mean you're automatically "wrong" or a "thief". I do not think lesser of the GW staff who put up how to recast small bitz or that its wrong.

But for personal use I really have no beef. Also, although I've never done it personally, from what I've read and seen about recasting its that its a time and skill intensive process. Unless done as a team, recasting seems like a very small scale operation and by its nature can't really affect GW.

The nature of the operation isn't really the issue here however, considering that the original topic was personal recasting.

The main problem that the anti-recasting camp has is that they believe it deprives GW(and thus, the sculptors), of being rewarded for their own hard work. For every meltagun cast, you don't buy a meltagun, and this takes money away from the people who spent that time designing it, and producing the original.

In that, I fully see where they're coming from, and acknowledge it. Regardless of the scale of the casting, or the the minute loss to GW's earnings, that minute loss is still there.

Kilkrazy wrote:
You have a pretty selective way of reading threads.

Firstly, the so-called 'anti-recasting camp' are devoted to the legals laws of modern civilisation, not their own prejudices.

Secondly, the pro-recasting group are united not by religion, race or other belief but simply by their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

It's not up to you to have a problem or not to have a problem about people copying stuff, unless it's your stuff. Society as a whole has already decided that copying stuff without permissoin is wrong. You as a creator can allow people to copy your own stuff, and you have no rights over someone else's stuff.

I beg to differ, as a whole refers to a unanimous decision. As long as there is at least one who is against it, then it's not as a whole. Also I find that a lot of people use torrents and find nothing wrong with them.

Please leave your bias outside of this thread.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Cane wrote:Semantics, schematics. I see your Wiki definition and raise you one from merriam-webster.com:

Bigot:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Which the anti recasting camp definitely looks like to me.

Not sure why you keep bringing up the candybar example; recasting an item that you originally bought is not the same thing as 'petty' shoplifting.

The tone, time, and language used indicates to me that this discussion is more than just whats at face value and I'll leave it at that.

I have no problem with people trying to make their own replica of a classic or exotic car. Same deal with models about 'em; its this similar line of thought that I extent to recasting.

Also have no problem with people trying to homebrew their favorite kind of beer and making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

You have a pretty selective way of reading threads.

Firstly, the so-called 'anti-recasting camp' are devoted to the legals laws of modern civilisation, not their own prejudices.

Secondly, the pro-recasting group are united not by religion, race or other belief but simply by their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

It's not up to you to have a problem or not to have a problem about people copying stuff, unless it's your stuff. Society as a whole has already decided that copying stuff without permissoin is wrong. You as a creator can allow people to copy your own stuff, and you have no rights over someone else's stuff.

I think you missed the semicolon in the definition, its not solely defined and limited to people against races or religions. Note the word 'especially'.

As for your other points, thats all very debatable and argued throughout the thread. Also, if the Dakka poll and this topic means anything, most people are in fact in favor of recasting in some fashion than following GW propaganda. In fact as of this post about 83% of 229 Dakkites (or whatever we're called) are in favor of recasting in some way or another.

Cane wrote:Luna, I definitely agree that selling recasted stuff and parading them as official stuff is wrong; don't get me wrong there. However I was under the impression that this is about recasting in general and for personal use I've got no beef with it. From the OP throughout the thread this has been somewhat a conglomeration of issues all revolving around the general idea of recasting.

Same deal with if you like to grow and smoke marijuana; sure there are legal ways to get it and its largely illegal - but that doesn't mean you're automatically "wrong" or a "thief". I do not think lesser of the GW staff who put up how to recast small bitz or that its wrong.

But for personal use I really have no beef. Also, although I've never done it personally, from what I've read and seen about recasting its that its a time and skill intensive process. Unless done as a team, recasting seems like a very small scale operation and by its nature can't really affect GW.

Dont get me wrong either , im sure there are rare case that deserves our sympathy to allow some recast ( broken stuff for example )
but what im trying to get at is the whole problem , letting one exceptions through no matter how justified , soon you'll face TONS of unjustified cases.

No, recasting is not an intensive process , i have 2 threads locked regarding recasting ( you can do it in your garage , alone )

Please dont drag us into this, we had questions ourselves if it could be done legally, so we went out and spent 1500$ of our own money to see what a trained IP Attorney suggested (legal advice that was paid for).

We know we are on the right side of the law, and worst thing that happens we go to court to argue it. We arent going to jail from stealing from GW, I believe all our products are new sculpts and do not have very similiar GW counterparts.

You wont ever see a CH Landraider or other kit. At the most you will see a better looking character kit then the atrocious Vulcan He'stan GW did, but it will be a new sculpt, we will have documentation and proof of the sculpting and we will call it Forge Lord or something.

Pepsi - Coca-cola
Ford Mustang - Chevrolet Camaro
Apple Ipod - Sandisk MP3 player
IBM Thinkpad - Sony Expensive Laptop

Dont get me started on after market carparts with brighter lightbulbs and the same housing...

Oh yeah, we are thinking about creating some new combi-weapons, so, does that mean we cant create and sculpt our own flamethrower combi-weapon or a melty combi, of course not...

Nick

Ketara wrote:The nature of the operation isn't really the issue here however, considering that the original topic was personal recasting.

The main problem that the anti-recasting camp has is that they believe it deprives GW(and thus, the sculptors), of being rewarded for their own hard work. For every meltagun cast, you don't buy a meltagun, and this takes money away from the people who spent that time designing it, and producing the original.

In that, I fully see where they're coming from, and acknowledge it. Regardless of the scale of the casting, or the the minute loss to GW's earnings, that minute loss is still there.

Ah, true. However by looking on Ebay and other tradesites there are hardly any models and recasters around to make a noticeable dent and in the long run doesn't matter.

However this also assumes that the recaster would have bought more meltaguns and in this sense I disagree with that argument so GW really does lose nothing unless of course the recaster was able to sell it in GW quantities. Then again people who buy recasted metlaguns; they're not looking to buy full retail so GW loses nothing from this perspective.

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.

Cane wrote:
However this also assumes that the recaster would have bought more meltaguns and in this sense I disagree with that argument so GW really does lose nothing unless of course the recaster was able to sell it in mass quantities. Likewise with people who buy recasted metlaguns; they're not looking to buy full retail.

Why must humans always deal with things only when there are visible damage to things?
what happend to reinforcing the rules that prevents the damage to be noticeable in the first place?

Thats also what this is about.

Ketara wrote: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.

1 case alone cannot stand for everything. One might find Mordians easy to get , while one might find it hard.
You might find it hard to get hvy bolter shields, others might find it easy .
The situation are too different and too sensitive . Allowing one , would force all other cases to be allowed.
Who will have the time then to judge case by case if it is justified?

We Cannot.

@ Lunahound

using a mold to recast a broken piece I think would still be considered illegal. Why you ask? If I own a $5 bill, take a perfect photograph of it, burn it by accident, and then make a perfect reproduction, I am still counterfitting the bill. In the above listed example, you purchased the product, you received the product, you broke the product... You still have the rights to the broken piece of product that you have. Not to make a new piece.

The lawyers on the site can correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, the issues that I have in the Corporation Vs. Citizens (consumers, whatever) debate is that the law does not apply equally to citizens and the corporations. If a corporation is directly responsible for someone's death, the corporation gets fined (what amounts to a negligible amount of money, at that), whereas if a person is directly responsible for someone's death, they either go to jail or are killed themselves (depending on where the crime happened etc).

This also extends into the IP arena - For a while there, Microsoft was being penalized for a million dollars a day for IP infringement - can you imagine what impact that would have on a person if the same penalty was levied against them?

Society needs to retake the right to disolve corporations and companies that flagrantly break the law or establish penalties that reflect the crime.

niceas wrote:@ Lunahound
using a mold to recast a broken piece I think would still be considered illegal. Why you ask? If I own a $5 bill, take a perfect photograph of it, burn it by accident, and then make a perfect reproduction, I am still counterfitting the bill. In the above listed example, you purchased the product, you received the product, you broke the product... You still have the rights to the broken piece of product that you have. Not to make a new piece.

I know its wrong , but as i stated to the group that insist there are "justified cases that allows recast"
thats the only example i can think of , and already brought up , as something some what morally justified.

The answer is Luna, that no-one is really in a position to judge except ourselves. I've laid out the conditions above in which I believe re-casting is morally acceptable. If one person came to me saying, 'I only bought one gun shield and recasted the rest because I cba to find any more', I would find that morally reprehensible.

However, if they came to me and said, 'I could only find 4 after 3 months of searching, so I was forced to recast the rest to finish my project', I would find that morally acceptable.

The fact is, the law here is the ultimate arbiter of whether it's illegal or not, but when it comes down to whether it is morally acceptable or not, I believed that MUST be judged on a case by case basis.

In a murder case, the killer is usually given 25 years. But what if the killer only killed because the other guy would have killed him? If you just say that the law should be applied without taking into account any extenuating circumstances or reasons, the killer should still get 25 years anyway, self defense or no.

LunaHound wrote:I know its wrong , but as i stated to the group that insist there are "justified cases that allows recast"
thats the only example i can think of , and already brought up , as something some what morally justified.

Ah. Alright.

For those that may trot out the statement "but I can make a digital copy of my disks, because I own the rights to the IP" business, that relates to a specific decision on the part of the courts. It does not apply to the manufacture of physical product (again, I'll defer to a law degree here).

@ everyone trying to justify things - I take the stance that by making the choice to live in a particular society, you agree to abide by that societies laws. You gain all the benefits and all the restrictions that come inherent with that society. Thus, if you chose to recast, and get caught, don't go crying about how you were 'morally justified' in committing your action - you agreed to live in that society, you broke that societies laws, you therefore accept the consequences imposed by that society. Don't like your societies laws? Then seek to dispose of your society or leave.

Edit: @ Ketara: are you saying that morals are relative?

niceas wrote:
Personally, the issues that I have in the Corporation Vs. Citizens (consumers, whatever) debate is that the law does not apply equally to citizens and the corporations. If a corporation is directly responsible for someone's death, the corporation gets fined (what amounts to a negligible amount of money, at that), whereas if a person is directly responsible for someone's death, they either go to jail or are killed themselves (depending on where the crime happened etc).

The problem is, is that it's actually rather hard to send a corporation to jai, being that a corporation is an abstract legal entity, without a physical body to imprison, and also since that corporation is a abstract legal entity it's also somewhat difficult for it to be "directly responsible" for events. Of course the corporations, officers, employees and agents and investors, might be directly responsible for events, but when they are, they have been sent to jail, (perhaps not as often as you might like, but as with any originazation, individual responsibility can become somewhat diluted)

Ketara wrote:The answer is Luna, that no-one is really in a position to judge except ourselves. I've laid out the conditions above in which I believe re-casting is morally acceptable. If one person came to me saying, 'I only bought one gun shield and recasted the rest because I cba to find any more', I would find that morally reprehensible.

However, if they came to me and said, 'I could only find 4 after 3 months of searching, so I was forced to recast the rest to finish my project', I would find that morally acceptable.

The fact is, the law here is the ultimate arbiter of whether it's illegal or not, but when it comes down to whether it is morally acceptable or not, I believed that MUST be judged on a case by case basis.

In a honest and perfect world , i can find it easier to agree with you.
But knowing the people that will exploit such exceptions , i cannot.

No-one is denying the illegality of the situation. Now it has become more a matter of whether recasting under certain limited circumstances still makes a person morally wrong.

The fact is, whilst the law is often representative of morals, this is not always the case, and so one should not always judge what is morally right or wrong by what is legal and illegal.

EDIT: The whole 'morals are objective or subjective' debate was had out 5 pages or so back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

Ketara wrote:The answer is Luna, that no-one is really in a position to judge except ourselves. I've laid out the conditions above in which I believe re-casting is morally acceptable. If one person came to me saying, 'I only bought one gun shield and recasted the rest because I cba to find any more', I would find that morally reprehensible.

However, if they came to me and said, 'I could only find 4 after 3 months of searching, so I was forced to recast the rest to finish my project', I would find that morally acceptable.

The fact is, the law here is the ultimate arbiter of whether it's illegal or not, but when it comes down to whether it is morally acceptable or not, I believed that MUST be judged on a case by case basis.

In a honest and perfect world , i can find it easier to agree with you.
But knowing the people that will exploit such exceptions , i cannot.

Fair enough Luna, I understand your point, I just disagree with it. But can you understand where I'm coming from, and why I'm taking the position I am?

Ketara wrote:No-one is denying the illegality of the situation. Now it has become more a matter of whether recasting under certain limited circumstances still makes a person morally wrong.

I'm not sure why the morality of it is even an issue, in that case.

If you accept that something is illegal, then doing it anyway is wrong. Whether or not it is a moral action has no real bearing on it... by living where you do, you agree to abide by the laws of that place.

If you disagree with a given law you have the option to move somewhere that doesn't have that law, or to work within the established system to change that law. Simply breaking the law, whether or not you agree with it, and whether or not you feel bad about doing so, is wrong... because the community in which you have chosen to live has ruled that it is so.

Kilkrazy wrote:...the pro-recasting group are united by...their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

I'm in the pro recasting group, and I showed an example of a recast conversion mold. It wasn't made:

Kilkrazy wrote:to recast stuff against the law,
to the detriment of the owners,
for purely selfish reasons

It was a cool Whitescars Attack Jetbike. It was made in tribute to the hobby, as a unique sculptured piece of art, and shown to educate and inspire my fellow artists, dakkites, friends, fans and gamers!

In between accusation, legitimate esoteric morality discussions and other allegations I wanted to take a moment to offer counter point, and hopefully demonstrate a positive example.

To those following the discussion in a 3rd party sense, please don't conclude that all recasting is illegal or immoral, certainly don't steal, but don't let your artistic freedom be compromised either!

Augustus wrote:
To those following the discussion in a 3rd party sense, please don't conclude that all recasting is illegal or immoral, certainly don't steal, but don't let your artistic freedom be compromised either!

So far, the majority of argument was based on the original " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads "

bringing your own situation where you cast your own sculpting isnt really helping.

@Insaniak
Most people do not choose the systems into which they are born. You make a presumption here, which is that the person has the means whereby they can leave their society, and live in a society that they agree with.

Not only that, but you suggest that the will of the majority is the reason laws come into effect. Many laws are in fact complicated and often unpopular things which are either pushed through on the quiet by politicians, or are enforced by dictators.

The general consensus amongst hobbyists on this forum, where people are best qualified to judge whether recasting is morally right or not, is that it is under certain circumstances.

Just out of interest Luna, do you file me under that group? I'm genuinely interested as to whether you understand where I'm coming from, even if we do disagree.

Ketara wrote:@Insaniak
Most people do not choose the systems into which they are born. You make a presumption here, which is that the person has the means whereby they can leave their society, and live in a society that they agree with.

@ Ketara - I checked out the earlier portion of the thread discussing the notions as to whether morality is objective or subjective. I will grant that you have a more sophisticated view of morals/ethics as subjective than most I come across (the more common examples being forms of cultural or ethical relativism), however, I disagree with your stance that it is subjective. Given your reasonably developed view, I doubt I can convince you to change your stance in this thread, and thus unless you are particularly interested, I will simply say that I disagree with you. Although not perfect, I strive to be a Deontologist.

Regarding your above statement, however, I would say that is a rather simplistic view. The presumption you are making is that your only option is to a: leave the society and b: to find one that you agree with. I will concur that some people are unable to make that choice - usually because the society has deemed them to be non-persons. That said, everyone else has a choice. They may not LIKE their choice, but they have a choice none-the-less. As you may be able to tell, I agree with the Socratic ideal that originates from Plato's Crito.

Ketara wrote:
Just out of interest Luna, do you file me under that group? I'm genuinely interested as to whether you understand where I'm coming from, even if we do disagree.

Which group? ( you have to be very specific for me atm , im dying from the 102 F heat. )
going to go paint some orks in another room till the heat goes down

Cane wrote:My point is that this is nothing worth getting worked over for especially to the point of people generalizing and labeling eachother with derogatory terms but I will admit of calling anti-recasters bigots (specifically those that call the opposing side thieves for instance).

If it's not worth getting worked up about, why are you using loaded terms like "bigot" to describe people advocating the legally-correct position?

However when the other camp starts to equate recasting with murders and the like I do have to wonder how those cogs in other people's heads seem to work. That kind of extreme-ism especially against your fellow wargamer seems counter productive to legitimate discussion.

Use of loaded terms like "bigot" is counter-productive to legitimate discussion; you don't get to have the high ground here. All I offered was an example by which your excessively-broad application of the term is applicable to, frankly, everyone. So either you are using it in the original, perjorative sense, OR you've rendered it semantically null.

Imo this is just another venue for haters to hate ala what Manchu and Ketara wrote. Just because something is law or written by GW as such doesn't mean they hold much weight as evident by the articles and recasting methods GW staff have done.

What is a "hater," pray tell? Manchu and Ketara have been fairly articulate about their positions, with little need to invoke prejudicial language.

Would you have a moral problem with someone trying to build or fix up a classic Mustang even though they don't give a dime to Ford?

Are they making copies of classic Mustang parts to do it? If so, are those parts subject to protection under copyright? If yes, then yes I do have a problem with that; it's called counterfeiting of goods. There are legitimate sources of (licensed) reproduction parts for classic cars.

This type of issue also reminds me of some lawsuits involving military equipment/vehicle manufactureres trying to sue model companies since they don't give them royalties for using that design; does this type of recasting hate extend towards Tamiya and Revell who never spent a penny to the miltiary for their model success?

Another inapplicable example; the issue there is whether the military equipment manufacturers have any right to copyright in their designs, given the publically-funded nature of military tech development, and the licenses between the government & the manufacturers.

Hypothetical situation: A customer buys a GW model kit but accidentally breaks a meltagun to the point of it being useless. However the customer has access to a meltagun mold; would this person still be in the "wrong" if they exercised to use the mold for their situation?

Still against the law; still wrong. Is it worth breaking the law for a $2 bit?

Ketara wrote:Most people do not choose the systems into which they are born. You make a presumption here, which is that the person has the means whereby they can leave their society, and live in a society that they agree with.

I never said people have any control over where they are born.

I said that they choose to remain there. If they don't like the structure of the society in which they live, (at least in the bulk of what we call the 'western world', since most of the posters in this discussion are from the UK and US) they have the power to leave, or to change that structure.

Sure, not everyone in, say, the US has the wherewithal to pack up and move to a different country. But they do still have access to the other option to address laws they don't like without having to resort to just ignoring them.

Not only that, but you suggest that the will of the majority is the reason laws come into effect.

No I don't. I suggest that there is a mechanism in place, at least in democratic countries, for someone to effect a change of those laws.

LunaHound wrote:

Augustus wrote:
To those following the discussion in a 3rd party sense, please don't conclude that all recasting is illegal or immoral, certainly don't steal, but don't let your artistic freedom be compromised either!

So far, the majority of argument was based on the original " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads "

bringing your own situation where you cast your own sculpting isnt really helping.

Ahh Luna!

I actually like your ethical stance a lot. Perhaps we could find common ground if I said I agreed about casting exact reproductions to avoid expense? I completely concede that position, not what I am advocating. However:

Kilkrazy wrote:...the pro-recasting group are united by...their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons

This needed to be answered IMO because it was a much broader incrimination.

I think there is a place here to also defend artistic freedom and talk about how that fits in.

Janthkin wrote:Still against the law; still wrong. Is it worth breaking the law for a $2 bit?

Well, that is an interesting question - Some people have obviously decided that due to the minute likelyhood of getting caught and prosecuted, that it IS worth breaking the law for a $2 bit.

A question that I would be interested in finding out the answer to would be if the pro-recasting camp (not including those who are casting their own models) would accept responsibility for their actions in the event that they got caught...

The price tags on the things I need are getting bigger by the day
I got a bullet with a name on it.
Bullet with a name.
The way I work so hard for things they just take away from me.
I got a bullet with a name on it.
Bullet with a name.
--"Bullet with A Name" by Nonpoint

@ niceas
Fair enough if you take a different ethical standpoint in relation to morals. Unlike others in this thread, I'm relieved that there are some people who can accept that with equinamity, rather than just labelling me morally corrupt.

I would accept responsibility for my recasting of a OOP rapier track. However, I have a feeling that if it ever went before the judge, he would throw the case out of court for being such a waste of time.

I try to never do anything I would be ashamed of. No regrets, that's the key to healthy living.

@Luna
I meant the, " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads " group.

@Insaniak
You say that I have the choice to leave. I can't leave because I quite simply don't have financial means. I can't change the law, as I am but a lowly student. The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

Ketara wrote: The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

If you're an enrolled voter, you do have influence over the system. You have an elected representative, who you can approach to discuss the changes you want, or an opposing party just looking for those issues that the people in power aren't addressing.

You also have access to the people around you. Lobbying for change starts with one person.

Ketara wrote:...The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

Yep... and, well, hmmm....

Ketara wrote:@Insaniak
You say that I have the choice to leave. I can't leave because I quite simply don't have financial means. I can't change the law, as I am but a lowly student. The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

*please note that I am not entirely serious here* Armed revolution?

Whether you believe in morals being objective or subjective, ultimately we are disagreeing on a non-moral fact. What is that non-moral fact? Whether morals exist absolutely or not. Meta-ethics aside, as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, I personally do not have issue with your stance.

My personal views on laws is quite different than what is practiced within my own society - I feel that the punishment for disobedience should be harsher, but once served, done. A second offense should bear even stricter punishment. Why is this? My countries current legal system encourages recidivism - you get caught for a crime, then you gain a criminal record, even though you have served your time. Thus you bear an invisible ball and chain as you move through life, encouraging continued recidivism. Combine having a criminal record with weak punishment and you'll find yourself knee deep in hardened criminals.

Ketara wrote:The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

Join or support an NGO working/lobbying on the issue...

Red9 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
You have a pretty selective way of reading threads.

Firstly, the so-called 'anti-recasting camp' are devoted to the legals laws of modern civilisation, not their own prejudices.

Secondly, the pro-recasting group are united not by religion, race or other belief but simply by their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

It's not up to you to have a problem or not to have a problem about people copying stuff, unless it's your stuff. Society as a whole has already decided that copying stuff without permissoin is wrong. You as a creator can allow people to copy your own stuff, and you have no rights over someone else's stuff.

I beg to differ, as a whole refers to a unanimous decision. As long as there is at least one who is against it, then it's not as a whole. Also I find that a lot of people use torrents and find nothing wrong with them.

Please leave your bias outside of this thread.

I see. So democracies have no moral mandate to govern? Only states like North Korea and Burma have total unanimity of support for the government.

Also I find that a lot of burglars use burglary tools and find nothing wrong with them.

It seems that you have not thought of the wider situation beyond your immediate desires to get free stuff.

He's a fun little stick to toss onto a pile of embers.

What if someone recasts a part in clear resin for a lighting conversion?

Lanceradvanced wrote:He's a fun little stick to toss onto a pile of embers.

What if someone recasts a part in clear resin for a lighting conversion?

Then they're an evil person with no morals or ethics who deserves the death penalty. We can't let scum like that walk the earth.

Maybe my sense of morality is overly simplistic, but in a situation where the thing being gained is a pure luxury, when one person benefits at the expense (no matter how slight) of another, how is that not immoral?

You can raise all the valid points about property ownership and the questionable nature of the laws and whatnot, but it's hard to argue out of that one.

Polonius wrote:Maybe my sense of morality is overly simplistic, but in a situation where the thing being gained is a pure luxury, when one person benefits at the expense (no matter how slight) of another, how is that not immoral?

You can raise all the valid points about property ownership and the questionable nature of the laws and whatnot, but it's hard to argue out of that one.

Ppl's counter argument is:

Its not a big deal , have you never done anything wrong? going over speed limit , j walking.

In other words in this thread : 2 wrong does make a right...

(humanity have a bright future ahead)

It is a valid argument though, if you've ever driven 1mph over the speed limit, you've broken the law. Your reckless driving is putting other people's lives at risk.

Sidstyler wrote:It is a valid argument though, if you've ever driven 1mph over the speed limit, you've broken the law. Your reckless driving is putting other people's lives at risk.

First off, reckless has a legal definition. 1 mph would be, at most, careless.

Secondly, morality isn't' concerned with "What do other people get away with." The moment you start with that, you end up pretty quickly in a situation where nobody can question anybody else's behavior.

Sidstyler wrote:It is a valid argument though, if you've ever driven 1mph over the speed limit, you've broken the law.

The obvious counter-argument being that what you may or may not have done in the past is far less relevant to the discussion than your current perception of the need to abide by the laws of your society.

The whole point of punishment for breaking the law, after all, is that it's supposed to persuade you that what you did is a bad thing, and that you should follow the rules in the future...

And people's perceptions change. Even without having been punished for wrong-doing, someone who thinks that, say, downloading music is perfectly acceptable today can over time develop a completely different attitude towards it. The end result being someone who, despite having done it themselves in the past, would never contemplate doing it again.


The whole 'You don't have a right to say that something is bad unless you've never done anything wrong in your life' argument is just downright silly.

LOL and i thought i was hated on dakka

Lanceradvanced wrote:He's a fun little stick to toss onto a pile of embers.

What if someone recasts a part in clear resin for a lighting conversion?

When there's no clear part available from the manufacturer? And the number of clear pieces you're going to make doesn't exceed the number of regular pieces you've bought?

Not a problem, as far as I can see.

(Now you've got me thinking about Rhinos with working lights.....)

LunaHound wrote:

Augustus wrote:
To those following the discussion in a 3rd party sense, please don't conclude that all recasting is illegal or immoral, certainly don't steal, but don't let your artistic freedom be compromised either!

So far, the majority of argument was based on the original " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads "

bringing your own situation where you cast your own sculpting isnt really helping.

I'm just going to step in and bust a hole into the example. The re-casting of a meltagun off of a command sprue is not strictly illegal. For one the copyright GW applies covers the sprue as a whole as singular artistic work. In copying the meltagun you are not copying or making a second instance of your ability to produce a command squad. Thus the essence of the whole has itself not been replicated. This would akin to copying the "Thinkers" right buttocks. On the other hand if you selected something that is more directly related to your ability to reproduce a command squad say the apothecary parts or standard bearer you are effectively creating a second instance of what the model is intended for. Like copying the "Mona Lisa's" smile, the smile is everything. Ignoring the fact that my analogy uses works in the public domain, there is that critical component of how much you're copying that would legally come into play.

GW at a time had instructions and permission to do minor greenstuff molding/casting in their publications. This in addition to what would generally be regarded as fair use for a model kit would dictate that some degree of recasting is permitted. Even without GW's implied permission, some less substantial re-casting is strictly allowed under law, going back to the substantive value. Further the argument could be potentially made in court that because of the nature of the hobby GW prescribed to provide more leeway for recasting would be possible.

The example of Rhino headlights is once again one that falls into the bounds of legally acceptable. While you are copying a component you are not copying the work in a substantial way; you are not making it possible to create a second rhino.

Simply put not all recasting is illegal, just most.

Right, it's clearly a case by case basis.

aka_mythos wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Augustus wrote:
To those following the discussion in a 3rd party sense, please don't conclude that all recasting is illegal or immoral, certainly don't steal, but don't let your artistic freedom be compromised either!

So far, the majority of argument was based on the original " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads "

bringing your own situation where you cast your own sculpting isnt really helping.

I'm just going to step in and bust a hole into the example. The re-casting of a meltagun off of a command sprue is not strictly illegal. For one the copyright GW applies covers the sprue as a whole as singular artistic work. In copying the meltagun you are not copying or making a second instance of your ability to produce a command squad.

Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).

Janthkin wrote:Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).

Hold on a minute, I think he was on to something.

Here is the melta-gun kit (feel free to pick some up if you need them) and it includes 5 melta-guns, not 1-4.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1400031&rootCatGameStyle=

If I need only 2 melta-guns, I see no reason why his analogy would not be entirely correct. They are NOT sold individually, so recasting one could be a definite case for legality within the confines of GW's IP rules. I see no way the GW A-team Lawyers could crack down on one recasted melta-gun that could not be attained individually.

Like I said before I think it becomes criminal when you are recasting a product that they sell in the same arrangement/quantity for the same purpose.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).

Hold on a minute, I think he was on to something.

Here is the melta-gun kit (feel free to pick some up if you need them) and it includes 5 melta-guns, not 1-4.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1400031&rootCatGameStyle=

If I need only 2 melta-guns, I see no reason why his analogy would not be entirely correct. They are NOT sold individually, so recasting one could be a definite case for legality within the confines of GW's IP rules. I see no way the GW A-team Lawyers could crack down on one recasted melta-gun that could not be attained individually.

Like I said before I think it becomes criminal when you are recasting a product that they sell in the same arrangement/quantity for the same purpose.

No, he's not. It doesn't matter whether you have to get multiples of the sculpture. It doesn't matter if it's only available as part of a giant sprue, or in combination with a complete boxed set.

The only question is "is a meltagun a copyrightable sculpture?" I don't see any argument that would suggest that the answer is anything but "yes."

A melta gun is a complete, identifiable sculpture. You're not going to get a valid "incidental use" argument about a complete identifiable bit.

(Moreover, you can obtain a single meltagun if you want to. You're just choosing not to.)

No need to be all covert man, this isn't some kind of war.

http://www.thewarstore.net/product26988.html

http://www.thewarstore.net/product26988.html wrote:

I would personally never even think of buying one melta for 5$, but here it is if you want ONE melta-gun.

"Note"
I already said I do not even play SM, so this specific discussion is sort of a moot point for me, but it does provide me with some knowledge into a few facets of the War-gaming hobby on the whole. I am quite sure that GW would be one of the only companies to be at risk for this type of recasting but this seems to be due to their immense customer base and general marketing strategy.

mikhaila wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

i tip my hat to you sir for a lols on the GF/BF kill-kill eye look commentary.

Janthkin wrote:
Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).

If GW were to claim each individual piece were a distinctive and separate artistic works, we could file a class action suit for it being an illegal bundling, where we can only purchase a unique and distinctive product by buying a whole selection of products. Thats illegal if GW insists on them each being separate and distinct artistic works, which they aren't. The artistic work is the "Space Marine Command Squad" not the individual and often unnecessary components.

The important aspect is that you are not copying the essence of what the model kit is. Regardless of how you chose to use the kit what you are purchasing is the ability to assemble a "Space Marine Command Squad" the essence of that is whatever distinctly allows for that. As long as you are not replicating that ability to produce a "Space Marine Command Squad" you have legally implicit rights to minorly reproduce. GW's given permission in the past both to do minor casting, that permission gives us the right to until a time the demand an individuals stop, that is explicit. For you to say I can't or someone else can't do minor casting or casting of any kind you have to over rule our implicit rights and GW's explicit permission.

My point is that the action of recasting is not evil, it is how you choose to use and exploit that ability that shifts it from a implicitly lawful act to an illegal action.

aka_mythos wrote:My point is that the action of recasting is not evil, it is how you choose to use and exploit that ability that shifts it from a implicitly lawful act to an illegal action.

Like a nice Hawaiian breeze I tells ya'!

aka_mythos wrote:GW's given permission in the past both to do minor casting, that permission gives us the right to until a time the demand an individuals stop, that is explicit. For you to say I can't or someone else can't do minor casting or casting of any kind you have to over rule our implicit rights and GW's explicit permission.

Could you direct us to this information? I would be interested in seeing how GW put this statement. It has to be somewhere on the site, or in materials produced by GW, it would be fantastic for the thread if you could provide this.