I think it is a fairly common reaction for people in this day and age to not feel immoral over action which undermine major corporations. These are faceless, intentionally de-humanized organizations, which in GW's case, has said some pretty incendiary things under oath about how they view their customers. Their product quality has been consistently poor for some time, and importantly, has underwent a pretty direct downwards slide of quality on all fronts while raising prices. From objectively worse rulesets, to questionable models with huge pricetags and the intentional shutdown of all avenues of communication, GW has divorced itself from its customers as much as possible.

In short, you've got a multinational which is fleecing their customers and honestly believes their customers *want* to be fleeced, and that is what makes them happy.

From that, there are a number of different reactions an unhappy customer might have. Regionalized prices and high markups lead the discount retailer phenomena and online stores (honestly, how many products have to be offered at 25% just to move them? No Australian or Canadian store sells GW product at full retail and expects to move it in reasonable quantities). GW responded with banning online stores wherever they could and changing trade account policies prohibiting cross-border shipping. Alternatives exist, but the overall impact in those regionalized areas has been and is still less than stellar.

Taking things a step further than that, as frustration builds, angry customers who would otherwise be paying GW for a product, move to other product lines - no shortage of competition exists in the void GW has consistently left open. Others, however, remain attached to the 40k setting and game for all its flaws, but want nothing to do with GW any longer. What do they do? Buy used or recast.

My own observations on that front is that people with established collections who have clubs which make up for some of GW's shortfalls want some way to keep varying their forces and playing the game, but don't want to reward GW for its legion of bad decisions and anti-customer attitude, or simply can't afford GW's out-of-control pricing. Some will just give up and shelf everything, but most seek means of continuing in some capacity; buying used is certainly the most popular; no shortage of people leaving the hobby dumping stuff on eBay, but when/if that approach fails, that's when recasts enter the equation for most people.

I'd hazard a guess that recasts, from what I've seen and heard, are the choice of last resort. When GW has forced people out of the hobby they love and turned their back on their customer base, they go through various stages of trying to keep doing what they enjoy, and after all the more conventional means have been exhausted do they turn to the People's Republic to satisfy their demand. I don't know anyone who buys recasts en-masse - out of a community of about 150-175 people or so across my region, there was one guy who cast everything himself (and then got pissed off and sold it all for rock-bottom prices, it was most glorious, a warehouse full of Imperial Guard on sale for pennies), but there are plenty of armies with a few recast pieces in them; stuff which is OOP, stuff who's pricing is especially egregious (GW and FW's massively inconsistent pricing is worth considerign), and people who've been out of a game for some time, dug out their old collections and have discovered they've been completely priced-out of their old hobby. People still buy GW product from independents and the like (some even from the one GW store), moreso than recasts or aftermarket producers still, but the share going elsewhere is certainly rising in line with frustrations.

I, for one, have only ever bought one recast item which I had heard was a terrible cast and a nightmare to put it together, while also being extremely expensive (and at a time when the exchange rate was especially unfavourable). I had heard that recasts are sometimes a bit more reliable, and given the low price I figured I'd give it a go, see what happened. End result was damned impressive, but I haven't bought anything since - the state of 40k is such I don't want to invest any money, recast or not into it.

As far as morality enters the equation, what I have seen is when alternatives exist from other legitimate companies, people (myself included) would rather buy those even though recasts are cheaper. Small companies like Victoria Miniatures, Dreamforge, Kromlech and so on are all well represented, even though in some cases they offer little to no savings versus their GW/FW counterparts, but are more attractive due to being a much more human business, responsive to ideas, suggestions and desires.

Aside from the one fellow, I've never seen recast Guardsmen, Marines, Leman Russes and the like; people will prefer to vote with their wallet by supporting a legitimate business, but Spartans, Sicarans, Riptides, Wraithknights, Wave Serpents, Tyranids? If they can't be found used, players are certainly turning to recasters, much moreso than when I started playing. Hell, the first recast I ever saw/heard of was in 2012, an Ironclad Dreadnought someone had done themselves in their garage. This is a new phenomena, but it also can't be viewed in a vacuum, it is part of a much larger phenomena and process, most of the blame can be attributed to GW itself.

Of course, one can argue that this is a luxury, you don't need to buy it, accept you aren't the target and move on to someone who does value your business. The problem with that arguement, and a comparison to Prada or Ferrarri is that GW did not use to price things as high as they do now - they've always been expensive, but the fact that in the space of a few years (and this is a long-term sort of hobby) many people who were once the target and product was justifiable in terms of cost/reward no longer are. People aren't about to just give up on a hobby they have enjoyed for years, decades even, where they have invested a lot of money, with established social circles and so on just because GW has priced them out of keeping up. Some will, and have done just that, and there certainly are far fewer people getting in to the game (back in Canada, I don't think there's been more than 2 new people in the entire BC 40k/Fantasy community in 6 months, and the demographic is decidedly older - I'm one of the youngest at 23, whereas here in France the demographic is notably younger, there clearly are people getting in to it here, but that I imagine is heavily predicated on the regional pricing model and higher wages in France, especially for youth). People are deciding this is a luxury they're not getting involved in, but it's a lot harder for someone already in it to back out as the business has decided they don't want them. Recasting is one of a legion of responses to that.

In the end, I'm more in favour of "Oldhammer" myself, but I understand recasting and the like, and I'm not about to offer any moral defense of GW. If anything, healthy capitalism is dependent on people voting with their wallets, choosing competition and encouraging companies to change. IP infringement on a large scale is a symptom of dysfunction, and history has taught us that should the enterprise(s) in question realign their business model in reflection of that dysfunction, people will return to buying "legitimate" product, morals don't factor into it.

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Not really. For example, what coukd could GW do to dissuade me from buying recast: start pricing models according to their size and detail, not their tabletop performance and stop shifting game rules around just to push the sales of model X or Y, both of which aren't exactly moral in themselves.

Sorry, but in what bizarre world is not using the pricing policies that you want an immoral act? GW sells plastic toys, not essential goods/services. If you don't like their prices you're free to buy something else instead. There are pricing decisions that maximize profit and pricing decisions that fail to do so, but no possible pricing decision by GW (or any other company selling luxury items like GW) could be reasonably labeled "immoral".

In the same bizzare world where buying a product that I want and I'm well within my legal rights to buy/own can be labeled immiral.

recasters of course have lower prices, they have lower costs. No designers, stores (I'm not saying that is a good thing for GW to have, just a fact) and infrastructure to maintain. So of course it is cheaper to copy than create, that is a simple fact

Morally I cannot stand recasting, it is repugnant , parasitical behaviour. No amount of post hoc rationalisation by those on here will change that, as is simply selfish justification of an entitled mind.

Dont like GW prices? Dont do things with GW. Dont try to claim your want is a need.

LordBlades wrote:
In the same bizzare world where buying a product that I want and I'm well within my legal rights to buy/own can be labeled immiral.

Legal =/= moral. And that doesn't do anything to answer the question of how GW's pricing decisions are immoral. So I guess that's your concession that "immoral" in this context just means "more than I want to pay"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Dont like GW prices? Dont do things with GW. Dont try to claim your want is a need.

Who here claimed it's a need? Corporations are by and large company letely amoral, so why should their customers be expected to behave differently?

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
In the same bizzare world where buying a product that I want and I'm well within my legal rights to buy/own can be labeled immiral.

Legal =/= moral. And that doesn't do anything to answer the question of how GW's pricing decisions are immoral. So I guess that's your concession that "immoral" in this context just means "more than I want to pay"?

To give you an example of what I'd consider an immoral decision: Gw makes new broadside kit that, relative to size/levelof detail costs a great deal more than comparable models. Then, in order to also make people who already have the old broadsides buy the new ones, they make HRR useless and HYMP (which was only an option in the new kit) super strong. I find that disrespectful toward existing customers.

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Not really. For example, what coukd could GW do to dissuade me from buying recast: start pricing models according to their size and detail, not their tabletop performance and stop shifting game rules around just to push the sales of model X or Y, both of which aren't exactly moral in themselves.

Sorry, but in what bizarre world is not using the pricing policies that you want an immoral act? GW sells plastic toys, not essential goods/services. If you don't like their prices you're free to buy something else instead. There are pricing decisions that maximize profit and pricing decisions that fail to do so, but no possible pricing decision by GW (or any other company selling luxury items like GW) could be reasonably labeled "immoral".

In the same bizzare world where buying a product that I want and I'm well within my legal rights to buy/own can be labeled immiral.

Legal does not automatically mean moral. Thats a fundamental truth.

Want - so entitlement again. You want a product, just think it costs too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Dont like GW prices? Dont do things with GW. Dont try to claim your want is a need.

Who here claimed it's a need? Corporations are by and large company letely amoral, so why should their customers be expected to behave differently?

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

So Prada should reduce their prices, because you dont like them?

Entitlement complex again.

Oh, and "I can be bad because X is bad" is a gakky way to live, you realise that yes?

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Sorry I took a wrong turn from atop my high horse.
The "recasts is okay" camp's main argument at this time is "GW doesn't deserve my money". That is fine, don't give them your money, though using this as justification to immorally buy illegal products is simply pathetic.
Sorry if I sound like a broken record (which is in no way broken due to the slave labour used in creating the record), though my same point still needs to be made.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So Prada should reduce their prices, because you dont like them?

More that Prada should make their price seem justified if they want him as a customer.


It comes back to that relationship with the customers that was discussed earlier. People are happy to spend money with companies that they like. We've seen comments in this very thread from people who buy direct from GW because they feel that they should support GW for producing the product that they like.

If GW want to stop people buying from recasters, they need to make those people feel that the product they are buying is worth the asking price. Lowering prices is only a part of that, and not inherently required because the price is only one part of the relationship equation. The other part (and IMO the bigger part) is fostering a positive outlook in your customers. Happy customers are often far less concerned about the price.

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So Prada should reduce their prices, because you dont like them?

More that Prada should make their price seem justified if they want him as a customer.


It comes back to that relationship with the customers that was discussed earlier. People are happy to spend money with companies that they like. We've seen comments in this very thread from people who buy direct from GW because they feel that they should support GW for producing the product that they like.

If GW want to stop people buying from recasters, they need to make those people feel that the product they are buying is worth the asking price. Lowering prices is only a part of that, and not inherently required because the price is only one part of the relationship equation. The other part (and IMO the bigger part) is fostering a positive outlook in your customers. Happy customers are often far less concerned about the price.

Do you honestly think that even if GW made plastic sister's of battle (sorry this thread hadn't mentioned them yet), made a rule book everyone in the world was happy with, and lowered all of their prices by half that people still wouldn't buy recasts if they could get them cheaper?

 Rippy wrote:

Do you honestly think that even if GW made plastic sister's of battle (sorry this thread hadn't mentioned them yet), made a rule book everyone in the world was happy with, and lowered all of their prices by half that people still wouldn't buy recasts if they could get them cheaper?

No, I think that with the effort GW have put into alienating their customer base over the last few years, it would take a lot more than that to regain all of the goodwill that they have lost.

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So Prada should reduce their prices, because you dont like them?

More that Prada should make their price seem justified if they want him as a customer.


It comes back to that relationship with the customers that was discussed earlier. People are happy to spend money with companies that they like. We've seen comments in this very thread from people who buy direct from GW because they feel that they should support GW for producing the product that they like.

If GW want to stop people buying from recasters, they need to make those people feel that the product they are buying is worth the asking price. Lowering prices is only a part of that, and not inherently required because the price is only one part of the relationship equation. The other part (and IMO the bigger part) is fostering a positive outlook in your customers. Happy customers are often far less concerned about the price.

Indeed, and I get that - however from the attitude here, most of it is I want something, I'm just not prepared to pay X for it so will pay X/4 instead.

That's the main problem I have; I want something thats too expensive, so I'll commit an immoral act with the post hoc justification that "GW need to earn my custom"

 Peregrine wrote:

 Achaylus72 wrote:
I am on a very restricted budget, so if I want stuff that I can get up to 50% cheaper and 100% better quality from a recaster then I'll do it and damn anyone who says otherwise.

Here's a better idea: buy something else and just accept that you can't afford GW products. This isn't a basic need like food or water that you can't possibly live without, and would be justified in stealing if you had no other option.

Which would still leave the issue of having lower quality products. I've bought stuff from forgeworld, and I've seen some of the illegal, chinese recasts (Tauros vehicles & drop sentinel in this case), and the recasts were simply better. Less flash, less warping, details were surprisingly crisper plus free shipping at 1/3rd of the price.

So even if they were to cost the same and even if people had all the money in the world to spend, why pay more for an inferiour product?

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Do you honestly think that even if GW made plastic sister's of battle (sorry this thread hadn't mentioned them yet), made a rule book everyone in the world was happy with, and lowered all of their prices by half that people still wouldn't buy recasts if they could get them cheaper?

No, I think that with the effort GW have put into alienating their customer base over the last few years, it would take a lot more than that to regain all of the goodwill that they have lost.

Sorry, my point was that in a hypothetical world where GW's customer base wasn't alienated, people would still take the recast option if it was cheaper.

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.

BRB wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Achaylus72 wrote:
I am on a very restricted budget, so if I want stuff that I can get up to 50% cheaper and 100% better quality from a recaster then I'll do it and damn anyone who says otherwise.

Here's a better idea: buy something else and just accept that you can't afford GW products. This isn't a basic need like food or water that you can't possibly live without, and would be justified in stealing if you had no other option.

Which would still leave the issue of having lower quality products. I've bought stuff from forgeworld, and I've seen some of the illegal, chinese recasts (Tauros vehicles & drop sentinel in this case), and the recasts were simply better. Less flash, less warping, details were surprisingly crisper plus free shipping at 1/3rd of the price.

So even if they were to cost the same and even if people had all the money in the world to spend, why pay more for an inferiour product?

Because one is made legally and the other is made illegally. It depends on what your moral.compass says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.

I Hope everyone doesn't start acting with your questionable attitude, as then there will be no more GW to pirate off.

 insaniak wrote:
More that Prada should make their price seem justified if they want him as a customer.

But you're confusing two very different things here: continuing to buy GW products and buying illegal recasts. It's perfectly fine to decide that GW's prices are too high and stop buying. It's not ok to decide that GW's prices are too high so you're entitled to buy recasts instead.

If GW want to stop people buying from recasters, they need to make those people feel that the product they are buying is worth the asking price.

And examples of piracy in other industries seem to disprove this argument. Music/game/etc piracy isn't limited to just the big evil corporations that everyone hates, pretty much everything with more than a handful of fans is easily available. The only thing that seems to stop the pirates is being so obscure that nobody cares enough to buy and uploads a copy. And that includes some amusing incidents where game publishers or musicians said "we're going to sell this DRM-free because we respect our customers, please do the right thing and buy it" and their stuff was pirated just as much as any other popular game/album/etc.

So no, I don't believe that people will stop buying recasts if GW jumps through all of their hoops and magically becomes the best company ever. They'll just invent more rationalizations for why they "have" to buy recasts and save money. Similarly, I bet the vast majority of the people saying "GW is evil and I won't support them" as an excuse for buying recasts would immediately switch back to GW if the recasters raised their prices to GW levels.

 Rippy wrote:

Sorry, my point was that in a hypothetical world where GW's customer base wasn't alienated, people would still take the recast option if it was cheaper.

Some would, yes. There will always be those who are driven solely by price.

You reduce them though by making your customers want to support you, and by making it as easy as possible for them to do so. Again, look at the music industry. Rather than carrying on playing whack-a-mole with file-sharing sites, they just evolved their business model to one that works for today's market. GW, by contrast, is still refusing to accept that the '90s were a long time ago, and think that more restrictive business practices and refusing to communicate with their customer base will still work because they're the only fish in the pond.

The goal isn't to eliminate recasters. That's not going to happen. The goal is to build the loyalty of your customer base to the point where those few who turn to cheaper options simply don't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

But you're confusing two very different things here: continuing to buy GW products and buying illegal recasts. It's perfectly fine to decide that GW's prices are too high and stop buying. It's not ok to decide that GW's prices are too high so you're entitled to buy recasts instead.

I don't recall having ever said that anyone is 'entitled' to buy recasts.

 insaniak wrote:
Again, look at the music industry. Rather than carrying on playing whack-a-mole with file-sharing sites, they just evolved their business model to one that works for today's market.

And the file-sharing sites kept operating exactly as they had been, other than upgrading their file-sharing technology occasionally. The only thing that seems to have ever made any meaningful impact on the easy availability of pirated music has been legal action against file-sharing sites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
I don't recall having ever said that anyone is 'entitled' to buy recasts.

Maybe you haven't, but that's the argument you're entering: that people are entitled to own GW products, so if GW won't sell them at "fair" prices (where "fair" means "what I want to pay for them") then of course it's ok to get them from recasters because not having the desired GW product isn't an option.

 Peregrine wrote:
And the file-sharing sites kept operating exactly as they had been, other than upgrading their file-sharing technology occasionally. The only thing that seems to have ever made any meaningful impact on the easy availability of pirated music has been legal action against file-sharing sites.

That's because the goal is no longer to eliminate file-sharing sites, but simply to make the legal options more appealing. The same stuff will continue to be shared, yes. It just won't be shared by as many people.

Maybe you haven't, but that's the argument you're entering: that people are entitled to own GW products, so if GW won't sell them at "fair" prices (where "fair" means "what I want to pay for them") then of course it's ok to get them from recasters because not having the desired GW product isn't an option.

It's not, however, what I have said at any point in this thread, which makes it a fairly pointless response to a post that also wasn't making that claim.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And the file-sharing sites kept operating exactly as they had been, other than upgrading their file-sharing technology occasionally. The only thing that seems to have ever made any meaningful impact on the easy availability of pirated music has been legal action against file-sharing sites.

That's because the goal is no longer to eliminate file-sharing sites, but simply to make the legal options more appealing. The same stuff will continue to be shared, yes. It just won't be shared by as many people.

The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have just won a legal battle forcing all Australian ISPs to hand over details about stolen illegal downloads of their movie. The crusade to stop illegal downloads is still in full swing.

 insaniak wrote:
That's because the goal is no longer to eliminate file-sharing sites, but simply to make the legal options more appealing. The same stuff will continue to be shared, yes. It just won't be shared by as many people.

Do you have any credible statistics on this? How much did piracy decline when the music industry went digital? How many of the new customers for legal music downloads were "reformed" pirates, and how many were people who had been buying CDs until the change? And how much of the decision to move to a legal download system was driven by piracy vs. recognition that CDs were becoming obsolete?

It's not, however, what I have said at any point in this thread, which makes it a fairly pointless response to a post that also wasn't making that claim.

Now go back and look at the chain of posts you were responding to, where the original argument about "GW needs to convince me to buy" comes from someone who believes that they're entitled to buy recasts if GW won't give them the prices they want.

 Peregrine wrote:


Now go back and look at the chain of posts you were responding to, where the original argument about "GW needs to convince me to buy" comes from someone who believes that they're entitled to buy recasts if GW won't give them the prices they want.

All I feel entitled to is vote with my wallet and spend my cash elsewhere if GW doesn't convince me. Buying recasts IS a perfectly legal 'elsewhere' in that matter.

And no, until I see any sign GW gives a gak about their fans I won't lose any sleep over the perceived 'immorality' of my action.

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Now go back and look at the chain of posts you were responding to, where the original argument about "GW needs to convince me to buy" comes from someone who believes that they're entitled to buy recasts if GW won't give them the prices they want.

All I feel entitled to is vote with my wallet and spend my cash elsewhere if GW doesn't convince me. Buying recasts IS a perfectly legal 'elsewhere' in that matter.

And no, until I see any sign GW gives a gak about their fans I won't lose any sleep over the perceived 'immorality' of my action.

Okay so you admit you are immoral, don't care about GWs profits, or the fact that others purchasing non-recasts is the only reason there are new models being made for you to pirate. What is your point?

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.

Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.

@ Peregrine:
In Australia, downloading copyright-infringing music has dropped by 20 per cent since Spotify launched.

Considering Australia is one of the biggest downloaders of pirated material... that's pretty good.

Most people want to get the product the right way, however a lot of companies don't seem to understand this. In Australia the biggest reasons for pirating are the cost (Up to 400% that of what other countries pay for subscription-based television content for no reason, 261% more on iTunes, 219% for Google Play, etc.) or lack of availability (GoT only being accessible on 1 channel of 1 subscription-based TV service, shows airing days or weeks after they'd already aired elsewhere in the world, etc.). Sure, there are those who will still pirate (e.g. Doctor Who is still pirated even though episodes aired here at the same time as in the UK and again later on for those who weren't able to wake up early enough) but you can't completely erase everything even if you make it illegal (e.g. Marijuana is still used even if it is illegal).



Personally, when it comes to recasts, I would only buy them for OOP models and maybe for individual bits if I couldn't buy the real-deal. I can understand why people would be 100% ok with buying an entirely recasted kit that is still in production because of cost/availability (especially here in Australian with the ridiculous markup of prices that were already ridiculous to begin with).

Remeber morality is 100% subjective guys, you may find buying recasts immoral but others (like Lance and Lord) don't.

Rippy wrote:
The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have just won a legal battle forcing all Australian ISPs to hand over details about stolen illegal downloads of their movie. The crusade to stop illegal downloads is still in full swing.

I'm not sure I'd class one company making a bone-headed move as a 'crusade in full swing'...

Peregrine wrote:Now go back and look at the chain of posts you were responding to, where the original argument about "GW needs to convince me to buy" comes from someone who believes that they're entitled to buy recasts if GW won't give them the prices they want.

If your response was aimed at that part of the discussion, you probably would have been better off quoting that part of the discussion rather than my post.

 insaniak wrote:

Rippy wrote:
The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have just won a legal battle forcing all Australian ISPs to hand over details about stolen illegal downloads of their movie. The crusade to stop illegal downloads is still in full swing.

I'm not sure I'd class one company making a bone-headed move as a 'crusade in full swing'...

I would. It isn't the only example either. It was just you said that they are no longer trying to stop illegal downloading sites, when there is now precedence in our courts for ISPs handing over details for illegal downloadIng.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is the constant raids on sites such as the pirate bay.

 Rippy wrote:
It was just you said that they are no longer trying to stop illegal downloading sites, ...

No, I didn't. I said that it is no longer the main objective


(It's probably also worth pointing out that I was referring to the music industry specifically. The movie industry is still quite firmly stuck in the idea that stamping harder will do the trick, despite it being completely ineffectual so far...)

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
It was just you said that they are no longer trying to stop illegal downloading sites, ...

No, I didn't. I said that it is no longer the main objective


(It's probably also worth pointing out that I was referring to the music industry specifically. The movie industry is still quite firmly stuck in the idea that stamping harder will do the trick, despite it being completely ineffectual so far...)

Apologies, I thought you said exactly that with

insaniak wrote:Rather than carrying on playing whack-a-mole with file-sharing sites, they just evolved their business model to one that works for today's market

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.

Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.

Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.

Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.

Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

How do the treat their customers?!

 Rippy wrote:

How do the treat their customers?!

Like an annoying, stupid, ignorant but necessary evil?

 Rippy wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.

Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.

Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

How do the treat their customers?!

For starters, not everything they do immediately looks like a blatant cash grab.

Then they do have the.habit of releasing pretty regular errata.to their stuff, which does address problems.

Third, they actually engage with the community. Dark Heresy 2 had an open beta for example, which actually did an 180 degrees turn based on community feedback.

TBH, part of me hopes that when GW goes under (based.on.their recent financial reports, it seems more a matter of when rather than if) FFG picks up the IP.

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.

Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.

Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

No, the directional componnet isnt there; it is an immoral action, regardless of the company you are targeting.

"but bobby was bad as well!" isnt a great excuse for immoral behaviour.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?

It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.

And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".

Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.

Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.

Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

No, the directional componnet isnt there; it is an immoral action, regardless of the company you are targeting.

"but bobby was bad as well!" isnt a great excuse for immoral behaviour.

It's less 'but bobby was bad too' and more 'if you don't respect me, why should I go the extra mile to respect you?'

LordBlades wrote:
It's less 'but bobby was bad too' and more 'if you don't respect me, why should I go the extra mile to respect you?'

They are a goods-producing company. They sell good, they set their prices. Buy or don't buy. There is no need for any form of "respect" (unless you want to discuss the Business transactions of obtaining such goods)

Undercutting a goods producer by copying the goods produced and selling at a cheaper price is immoral.

As a purchaser of both goods available on the market (The original and the copy) you make a descision of purchase. Choosing the copy supports the immoral manufacturing.

As such, i would not say "you are being immoral", but you are supporting "immorality" (which, technically, does make you immoral)

 BlackTalos wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
It's less 'but bobby was bad too' and more 'if you don't respect me, why should I go the extra mile to respect you?'

They are a goods-producing company. They sell good, they set their prices. Buy or don't buy. There is no need for any form of "respect" (unless you want to discuss the Business transactions of obtaining such goods)

Undercutting a goods producer by copying the goods produced and selling at a cheaper price is immoral.

As a purchaser of both goods available on the market (The original and the copy) you make a descision of purchase. Choosing the copy supports the immoral manufacturing.

As such, i would not say "you are being immoral", but you are supporting "immorality" (which, technically, does make you immoral)

On the other hand, in my view, most/all corporations, as well as corporate culture in general, are full of immoral stuff. So in the end, for me, it's just a choice regarding which kind of immorality I want to support.

LordBlades wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
It's less 'but bobby was bad too' and more 'if you don't respect me, why should I go the extra mile to respect you?'

They are a goods-producing company. They sell good, they set their prices. Buy or don't buy. There is no need for any form of "respect" (unless you want to discuss the Business transactions of obtaining such goods)

Undercutting a goods producer by copying the goods produced and selling at a cheaper price is immoral.

As a purchaser of both goods available on the market (The original and the copy) you make a descision of purchase. Choosing the copy supports the immoral manufacturing.

As such, i would not say "you are being immoral", but you are supporting "immorality" (which, technically, does make you immoral)

On the other hand, in my view, most/all corporations, as well as corporate culture in general, are full of immiral stuff. So in the end, for me, it's just a choice regarding which kind of immorality I want to support.

Of course, simply the fact that i am supporting and buying models from Raging Heroes makes it immoral if i am playing a 40K Sisters of Battle Army.

But the aim here was to agree that buying recasts is immoral, and some users would rather not do such immoral deeds (even if "most/all corporations, as well as corporate culture in general, are full of immoral stuff" => 'but bobby was bad too' )

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, the directional componnet isnt there; it is an immoral action, regardless of the company you are targeting.

"but bobby was bad as well!" isnt a great excuse for immoral behaviour.

What is immoral? Immoral by whose standard? Yours? Irrelevant. You may be surprised to learn that your mores do not apply to the greater portion of the world's population...or even to your own community.

Fact: Purchasing and owning recasts is expressly legal in the US according to the US Attorney's Office.

Fact: The established purpose of law is to "preserve freedom and moral agency"

Inference: Moral agency is served by the purchase/ownership of recasts being legal. Ergo, NOT immoral by society's standards.

* Note, this does not apply to the manufacture/sale of said recasts as these acts are expressly illegal (except when applicable under Fair Use).

Yet legal and moral are NOT equivalences. One does not necessarily follow from the other, except in the most trivial and trite circumstances. Your inference is poorly constructed and flawed from the get go.

Also, your second "fact" is disagreed with on different sites. I noticed you cited no source for this face, but a business law site* considers the purpose to be:

"The law serves many purposes and functions in society. Four principal purposes and functions are establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting liberties and rights."

But even this is flawed, as it presumes that a US standard is even a standard.

Supporting a parasite is unlikely to be indicative of good morals.

*http://www.businesslawbasics.com/chapter-3-purposes-and-functions-law-1

Well, I'm glad at least the discussion seems to have shifted from "you're a thief!" to "you're inmoral!".

Considering GW has proven to be more than willing to blatantly lie under oath in order to shut off the competition (Chapterhouse case), I'd say it's fair to label them an absolutely inmoral company.

As such, what do you guys think would be a suitable adjective for people who not only give them money, but also defend them on the internet? Inmoral guardians?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet legal and moral are NOT equivalences. One does not necessarily follow from the other, except in the most trivial and trite circumstances. Your inference is poorly constructed and flawed from the get go.

Also, your second "fact" is disagreed with on different sites. I noticed you cited no source for this face, but a business law site* considers the purpose to be:

"The law serves many purposes and functions in society. Four principal purposes and functions are establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting liberties and rights."

But even this is flawed, as it presumes that a US standard is even a standard.

Supporting a parasite is unlikely to be indicative of good morals.

*http://www.businesslawbasics.com/chapter-3-purposes-and-functions-law-1

Source for my second fact:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-11.htm

I used it because I thought the point was clearly made and succinct but if you require further research, keep reading for a couple of other suggestions.

Other scholarly research on the matter:
"Morals and the Criminal Law" in The Philosophy of Law (ed R M Dworkin) Oxford (1977)

without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live. If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail; if having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate. For society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price.

The foundation of the US legal system is Common Law or case law, the law of precedents. I recommend you read, The Nature of the Common Law by Melvin Aron Eisenberg, he goes in depth into moral norms, social morality and how they determine rule of law in American society. It's a good read, I recommend around page 19-20 as a good starting point for that discussion.

--A bit off topic, sorry, but my first degree was in History and I worked for several years as a Legal Assistant in a previous life.

So, if we divorce law and morality completely, we have nothing to talk about at all because if laws and morality are not tied together in some way, your mores will be completely subjective and have no bearing whatsoever on my actions or anyone else's for that matter.

There is something i feel should be pointed out here.
From the beginning: i got into 40k decades ago about 1990 - so i've seen GW's practices, not quite from the beginning, but pretty close.

you didn't hear about 40k; you accidentally wandered into a shop because it said 'D&D' in the window and started asking questions about the sci-fi models they had in the cabinet.
After that you might buy into it and then you would go to the same shop to meet people who also play the game and maybe pick up a copy of white dwarf.
THIS IS BEFORE THE INTERNET OR MOBILE PHONES what you didn't get from white dwarf or your store owner or the parts catalouge you just didn't have or didn't know about. end of.
The only reason that GW even exists today is because people like me put our money into it back then, and let me tell you, prices were cheaper!
You could get any part you wanted from any model you wanted for about £1 maybe £2 and you could just buy the parts to upgrade your rhino to a razorback if you felt you wanted to.

We made the community that supported their company, we (the players) supported their stores, it became our community hub (no internet, no mobile phones!) - they encouraged us to do so to 'make the hobby our own'.
they used to supply models, terrain, game books, templates and dice to anyone who walked in the door wanting to play because GW knew that as soon as they got into it, they would be buying multiple armies. and IT WORKED.

Now look at things today; you have to ask in advance and then jump through hoops to even use one of GW's tables, you have to bring everything (may as well do it at home now, you can smoke/drink while doing it), no proxying allowed, staff get funny over 'houseruling' in their store (even though BRB enshrines it), you can't buy bits now, white dwarf is now a mini catalouge, we all go to a forum rather than the flgs for hobby info, and most importantly - that statement from the GW CEO stated how they now view us all -

Games Workshop is in the business of selling toy soldiers to children. - Tom Kirby, Chairman of Games Workshop PLC

If you play 40k and buy the models; he's talking about YOU.
Personally - if someone insults me as casually as that and despite having that pointed out to them still maintains that attitude - thats the opening of hostilities, and they are going to have to do some serious ass-kissing for me to forgive and let it drop.

There are three people in this thread who eigther didn't see that era or have developed 'stockholm syndrome' towards the company and i don't see why.
Since when did GW earn that loyalty from you? what did they do that impressed you so much youre willing to spend time on this thread (which was answered ages ago) arguing against the general concensus - they don't deserve your devotion.
BTW please avoid falling into the trap of feeling burned because the other guy got the same models for a fraction of the price; there's satisfaction in knowing you have the 'genuine' item, right? i'm feeling that with 'Bello Canis' my Warhound.


On a positive note, I see the new Skittarii stuff as the first step in the right direction for GW - the ranger squads are reasonably priced and the codex being £20 was refreshing. only dissapointment was the Onager at £40; £30 and i would be defending GW for 'doing the right thing'.

On a negative note, vehicles are still typically about £45 - that's too much for a plastic kit. All their vehicles need to come down in price a bit - how much spare cash do they think the children they sell to have?!?

Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

The fact that YOU consider it immoral, doesn't make it so for everyone.

 Rippy wrote:

Apologies, I thought you said exactly that with

insaniak wrote:Rather than carrying on playing whack-a-mole with file-sharing sites, they just evolved their business model to one that works for today's market

Fair point. Poor choice of words on my part,

 Rippy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So Prada should reduce their prices, because you dont like them?

More that Prada should make their price seem justified if they want him as a customer.


It comes back to that relationship with the customers that was discussed earlier. People are happy to spend money with companies that they like. We've seen comments in this very thread from people who buy direct from GW because they feel that they should support GW for producing the product that they like.

If GW want to stop people buying from recasters, they need to make those people feel that the product they are buying is worth the asking price. Lowering prices is only a part of that, and not inherently required because the price is only one part of the relationship equation. The other part (and IMO the bigger part) is fostering a positive outlook in your customers. Happy customers are often far less concerned about the price.

Do you honestly think that even if GW made plastic sister's of battle (sorry this thread hadn't mentioned them yet), made a rule book everyone in the world was happy with, and lowered all of their prices by half that people still wouldn't buy recasts if they could get them cheaper?

And allowed brick and mortar stores to order them so people could shop locally. And stopped shutting down avenues of purchase. And reopened communication with their customer base. Then yes. Recasters would make drastically less money.

Again,the only arguments I am seeing here is "Recasters are bad!" and "you should feel bad for GW". I would love for some actual points to come out of the other camp.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

Thank you. A point I was trying to make... over and over... pages ago. All the posts about GW/FW models being overpriced is just bullgak rationalization. It wouldn't matter if FW wanted to charge $25,000 for a Sicaran that was $5 in materials. Copying would still be both immoral and illegal in any country that someone on this forum is posting from.

 Talys wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

Thank you. A point I was trying to make... over and over... pages ago. All the posts about GW/FW models being overpriced is just bullgak rationalization. It wouldn't matter if FW wanted to charge $25,000 for a Sicaran that was $5 in materials. Copying would still be both immoral and illegal in any country that someone on this forum is posting from.

Immoral to YOU. Again, morality is relative. I find it hard to take moral bashing from people who have openly claimed to support either businesses who engage in shady practices or obvious tax evasion, but hey, to each his one.

Side note: not every country has a law against IP infringement. I'm sure there are other countries where recasts are perfectly legal.

 jreilly89 wrote:


Immoral to YOU. Again, morality is relative. I find it hard to take moral bashing from people who have openly claimed to support either businesses who engage in shady practices or obvious tax evasion, but hey, to each his one.

Side note: not every country has a law against IP infringement. I'm sure there are other countries where recasts are perfectly legal.

I didn't say that I am a moral person. I openly admit that I am immoral, though I don't break the law. But I'm honest about it. Every country that matters has signed TRIPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

It's a requirement to enter WTO. Countries that haven't signed include ones like: East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kiribati, North Korea, Liberia, Libya, Nauru, Niue. I'll bet you couldn't even point out 75% of the non-signatories on a globe... or even knew that some of those countries existed. Hell, even Sierra Leone is on the list.

My point: I'm not making a judgment on morality; I'm making a judgment on rationalization. If you want to cheat on your wife or girlfriend, go for it; I won't judge. But I will if you try to then justify it as somehow ok, for any reason at all other than that it's ok with her (in which case it's not cheating).

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

The fact that YOU consider it immoral, doesn't make it so for everyone.

By any standard it is immoral. Have fun with trying to justify something so self evident.

Again, your post hoc justification of your immoral act isn't my concern, just pointing out it out. Own your immorality.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

To understand that you have to understand the nature of Common Law. The decisions by courts and in the laws passed by local/state/national governments reflect the mores of the community that they represent. America is governed through a representative form of government (some argue democracy while others republic) and the intent is that laws will be passed to further the will of the people. Local laws of course reflect the local mores, not necessarily the national conscience; if the elected officials in New York feel that the majority of people who elected them approve of a ban on purchase of rebranded/counterfeit goods, that is more restrictive than the federal law which is supposed to be representative of the overall conscience of the entire country of 300+ million people. This is why prostitution is somewhat legal in Nevada and illegal throughout the rest of the US. The majority of the US does not support legalized prostitution but historically/traditionally, residents of Nevada are less bothered or else it wouldn't be legal. We're seeing changes in national mores in numerous areas (marijuana and gay marriage) throughout the US but localized resistance dependent upon local mores which are reflected by local ordinances and state laws.

Interesting stuff.

Again. Your morality does not equal my or necessarily anyone else's morality, no rationalization needed.

The concept of ownership of an idea or form is an arbitrary condition, it has no purpose beyond an attempt of a rationale to determine its merit or worth in society. We can rapidly come to conclusions that ownership of things is greatly beneficial but the ownership of ideas is entirely murky as creating an industry around said notion may result in a broken window fallacy.

Also, trying to any other analogy or rationale based on scarcity (relationships, physical goods, etc.) is inappropriate. It meets no end because these are based on rational concepts of limited resources. Ideas are not limited, but infinite.

Intellectual property and patents is something I fully intend to study further in my own lifetime. Potentially attending school to gain a degree in such as the concept will come to a quick and great concern as our society is on the cusp of negating scarcity otherwise (energy which begets elements).

I do understand it, coming from the UK which most of your precedents in law are based on, all the way back 800 years.

You made an equivalence that legal is moral. Yet that is unsupportable, as proven.

 agnosto wrote:


Again. Your morality does not equal my or necessarily anyone else's morality, no rationalization needed.

What isn't debatable is that recasting is covered under international IP treaties, and is both illegal and enforceable in every country that has signed the relevant treaty -- the fourth column in the table on this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

That includes China, and it isn't debatable. If an IP holder can prove that a recaster is selling counterfeit products, injunctive relief will be offered and sanctions will apply.

I think anyone who feels that stealing IP is not immoral should create an original work, try to make money off of it, and have it ripped off.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

By any standard it is immoral.

What a strange thing to say.

I remember this discussion happening years ago, and someone who had lived in China pointed out that a large part of the reason that knock-offs are so prevalent there is that culturally, they simply don't see intellectual property as an actual thing. In that sort of environment, despite the fact that their government has signed an international treaty promising to adhere to certain standards, it's very easy to imagine that the average guy on the street would not see a moral issue with ignoring the rules.

We see the same thing in western culture. Intellectual property isn't some fundamental law of the universe. It's a set of imaginary rules that we have created in order to (supposedly) allow the people who create things to fairly profit from them. Unless you talk to opponents of intellectual property law, in which case it's a set of imaginary rules put in place to protect the interests of mega-corporations like Disney, that frequently wind up screwing over the little guy. And to people with that viewpoint, it's very possible that ignoring those laws wouldn't be considered immoral in the slightest.

 Talys wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Immoral to YOU. Again, morality is relative. I find it hard to take moral bashing from people who have openly claimed to support either businesses who engage in shady practices or obvious tax evasion, but hey, to each his one.

Side note: not every country has a law against IP infringement. I'm sure there are other countries where recasts are perfectly legal.

I didn't say that I am a moral person. I openly admit that I am immoral, though I don't break the law. But I'm honest about it. Every country that matters has signed TRIPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

It's a requirement to enter WTO. Countries that haven't signed include ones like: East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kiribati, North Korea, Liberia, Libya, Nauru, Niue. I'll bet you couldn't even point out 75% of the non-signatories on a globe... or even knew that some of those countries existed. Hell, even Sierra Leone is on the list.

My point: I'm not making a judgment on morality; I'm making a judgment on rationalization. If you want to cheat on your wife or girlfriend, go for it; I won't judge. But I will if you try to then justify it as somehow ok, for any reason at all other than that it's ok with her (in which case it's not cheating).

So that's why the UAE closed down the Thomsun Original shops I mentioned a couple of pages ago.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

By any standard it is immoral. Have fun with trying to justify something so self evident.

Again, your post hoc justification of your immoral act isn't my concern, just pointing out it out. Own your immorality.

And how can you justify a statement saying that it is immoral to everyone? You can't. Morals are entirely subjective and will change between cultures, cities, countries or even individuals within one of those groups.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

The fact that YOU consider it immoral, doesn't make it so for everyone.

By any standard it is immoral. Have fun with trying to justify something so self evident.

Again, your post hoc justification of your immoral act isn't my concern, just pointing out it out. Own your immorality.

Have you completely studied every possible moral standard existing under the sun and reached this conclusion?

Bear in mind, I don't claim that buying recasts isn't immoral (nor that it is moral for that matter), just that holding everyone to your own purely subjective standard of morality is extremely presumptuous.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Immoral to YOU. Again, morality is relative. I find it hard to take moral bashing from people who have openly claimed to support either businesses who engage in shady practices or obvious tax evasion, but hey, to each his one.

Morality is relative, but you are stretching the definition of "relative" to essentially mean "If I think it's OK, then it's moral." That is not what it means. You're simply trying to rationalize your immoral choice, and pretend that it's moral. In truth, you have made an immoral decision, and you are happy with it.

What you are describing is NOT moral relativity. Moral relativity is based on the social morays of a given group or society. For example, you could have strong personal convictions that beating your wife is not immoral. But if you live in a society where that is not morally acceptable to do, your act is still going to be judged as "immoral".

Similarly, you seem to have this outrageous opinion that you can only be met with valid criticism from a totally righteous man. I have no right to judge you for buying illegally copied models, because I cheat on my taxes, or I copy game of thrones, for example.

This is also a false assumption. One does not have to be perfect to criticize another person. If I criticize you for speeding, but in the past I myself have gotten a speeding ticket, that doesn't invalidate the fact that you were, in fact, speeding. A drunk driver could criticize you for speeding. His crime is worse than yours. But if you are, in fact, speeding then it doesn't invalidate his judgement.

You cannot dodge being morally judged by others by demanding that you will only accept judgement from people that are perfect. Your actions stand alone. Your bad action is not cancelled out by my bad action.

Imagine I shot and killed my mother. We meet in jail, where you tell me that you shot and killed YOUR mother too. I can and will judge you negatively for killing your mother, and rightly so. Simply because I also killed my own mother doesn't invalidate your negative act. It simply makes you free to judge me negatively in return. You can't say to me "You can't judge me for killing my mom, you killed your mom too!" Just because I killed my own mother, doesn't mean I have to accept that YOU killing YOUR mother was morally correct. At worst I sound hypocritical, but even then, just because I killed my own mother, does that mean I have to be in favor of everyone killing their mothers? Of course it doesn't.

So I can freely judge you negatively for copying models. You can freely negatively judge me for cheating on my taxes.

 Talys wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Again. Your morality does not equal my or necessarily anyone else's morality, no rationalization needed.

What isn't debatable is that recasting is covered under international IP treaties, and is both illegal and enforceable in every country that has signed the relevant treaty -- the fourth column in the table on this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

That includes China, and it isn't debatable. If an IP holder can prove that a recaster is selling counterfeit products, injunctive relief will be offered and sanctions will apply.

I think anyone who feels that stealing IP is not immoral should create an original work, try to make money off of it, and have it ripped off.

HAHAHAHA I would LOVE to see Britain place sanctions on China. That would be hilarious. China, the second of 2 world super powers, that exports crap all over the world, and Britain would get zero support from the rest of the world who needs China's economy to keep the world running.

Good luck with that.

 Talys wrote:


I think anyone who feels that stealing IP is not immoral should create an original work, try to make money off of it, and have it ripped off.

Why? That would be asinine as arts as a product, more so one that's with zero reproduction cost (or extremely low) is a failing business model. Arts as a service, however, is growing by leaps and bounds. So maybe IP law is, as stated, a broken window fallacy and that the market is naturally course correcting faster than the laws can change.

Here's a wonderful example of such I read as I was sipping on my morning and coffee:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/how-a-cities-skylines-modder-turned-community-generosity-into-a-full-time-job/

Lance845 wrote:
HAHAHAHA I would LOVE to see Britain place sanctions on China. That would be hilarious. China, the second of 2 world super powers, that exports crap all over the world, and Britain would get zero support from the rest of the world who needs China's economy to keep the world running.

Good luck with that.

You, sir, have obviously never taken even a high school law class. In law, the term "Sanction" is means a remedy against the party perpetrating the injury. It may involve a fine, or jailtime, or injunctive relief, or a combination of such things. Economic Sanctions, between nations, is what you're thinking of.

Nominally, China fully (and vociferously) supports IP laws. Practically, whenever someone proves counterfeit, Chinese courts issue injunctive relief and shut down the perpetrator. These are called sanctions -- against the counterfeiter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I think anyone who feels that stealing IP is not immoral should create an original work, try to make money off of it, and have it ripped off.

Why? That would be asinine as arts as a product, more so one that's with zero reproduction cost (or extremely low) is a failing business model. Arts as a service, however, is growing by leaps and bounds. So maybe IP law is, as stated, a broken window fallacy and that the market is naturally course correcting faster than the laws can change.

Here's a wonderful example of such I read as I was sipping on my morning and coffee:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/how-a-cities-skylines-modder-turned-community-generosity-into-a-full-time-job/

Royalties are a foundation of our intellectual properties laws as a means of compensating artists. Without them, and you'd have a lot less art and a lot less distribution. Once upon a time, there were no such laws, and artists lived in poverty (look at musicians like Mozart, who had to find a wealthy patron).

While I will agree that a lot of people feel the way you do (that there should be no IP protection when there's no production cost), that is not the law, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't feel that way if you were a photographer, painter, sculptor, author, or recording artist. Especially if you enjoyed eating.

 Talys wrote:

Royalties are a foundation of our intellectual properties laws as a means of compensating artists. Without them, and you'd have a lot less art and a lot less distribution. Once upon a time, there were no such laws, and artists lived in poverty (look at musicians like Mozart, who had to find a wealthy patron).

While I will agree that a lot of people feel the way you do (that there should be no IP protection when there's no production cost), that is not the law, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't feel that way if you were a photographer, painter, sculptor, author, or recording artist. Especially if you enjoyed eating.

And I entirely disagree with the basis of facts compounding daily as the old models of artistic business fail with the new means, enables by Internet Commerce, are seeing artists turn forlorn skills into on-demand assets. Something tells me you didn't read that article. Or many others like them...

The concept of owning music is barely 100 years old. Movies and games even less. Books were limited entirely due to production cost and only became a thing with the printing press. Otherwise, the limitation was not IP rights, but how fast a monk could transcribe the text.

IP rights and royalties are a construct of primarily the 20th century in the right time, right place of being able to enforce them while reproduction costs remained high enough.

If you're selling arts as a product, you have no right to income. No other profoession of major worth can ride the coat tails of one major event unless that event was so monumental that the societal impact was that immense. Instead they must provide a service for that sustenance. I see no reason why artists need such a barrier to make it work. That tells me the business model is bad.

 Talys wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
HAHAHAHA I would LOVE to see Britain place sanctions on China. That would be hilarious. China, the second of 2 world super powers, that exports crap all over the world, and Britain would get zero support from the rest of the world who needs China's economy to keep the world running.

Good luck with that.

You, sir, have obviously never taken even a high school law class. In law, the term "Sanction" is means a remedy against the party perpetrating the injury. It may involve a fine, or jailtime, or injunctive relief, or a combination of such things. Economic Sanctions, between nations, is what you're thinking of.

Nominally, China fully (and vociferously) supports IP laws. Practically, whenever someone proves counterfeit, Chinese courts issue injunctive relief and shut down the perpetrator. These are called sanctions -- against the counterfeiter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I think anyone who feels that stealing IP is not immoral should create an original work, try to make money off of it, and have it ripped off.

Why? That would be asinine as arts as a product, more so one that's with zero reproduction cost (or extremely low) is a failing business model. Arts as a service, however, is growing by leaps and bounds. So maybe IP law is, as stated, a broken window fallacy and that the market is naturally course correcting faster than the laws can change.

Here's a wonderful example of such I read as I was sipping on my morning and coffee:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/how-a-cities-skylines-modder-turned-community-generosity-into-a-full-time-job/

Royalties are a foundation of our intellectual properties laws as a means of compensating artists. Without them, and you'd have a lot less art and a lot less distribution. Once upon a time, there were no such laws, and artists lived in poverty (look at musicians like Mozart, who had to find a wealthy patron).

While I will agree that a lot of people feel the way you do (that there should be no IP protection when there's no production cost), that is not the law, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't feel that way if you were a photographer, painter, sculptor, author, or recording artist. Especially if you enjoyed eating.

Do you mean closing down their web address? Because yes, that happens. And then the guy makes a new site. If anything was actually going to happen they wouldn't show up again.

IP laws is not why artists lived in poverty. Artists lived in poverty because the divide between the wealthy and the poor was vast. The poor didn't have money or time to waste on "art" and the rich were few in number. Those who got patronage flourished well enough. Those that didn't stayed poor. IP laws had nothing to do with it.

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

The fact that YOU consider it immoral, doesn't make it so for everyone.

By any standard it is immoral. Have fun with trying to justify something so self evident.

Again, your post hoc justification of your immoral act isn't my concern, just pointing out it out. Own your immorality.

Have you completely studied every possible moral standard existing under the sun and reached this conclusion?

Bear in mind, I don't claim that buying recasts isn't immoral (nor that it is moral for that matter), just that holding everyone to your own purely subjective standard of morality is extremely presumptuous.

Apart from when you said it wasn't immoral, due to GW actions or the entitlement fuelled rant over their supposed treatment of you, of course.

Keep justifying and rationalising the immorality as just not that bad, I'll continue to point out it is certainly immoral. I care not for your opinion otherwise.

Paying someone to commit an illegal act on your behalf. That's what you do when you pay a recaster.

Also, the success of art is no way indicative of the quality, as we live in a world where Twilight fan fiction is a multi billion dollar asset.

If you look at best paid positions, they are not artists. They are all those that provide a highly desired skill set that requires significant study or capability. They are also ones entirely constrained by time; a doctor or engineer can only manage or attend to so many customers in a given time period.

Artists, however, have built their entire livelihood on a subjective basis and with only a few managing great successes. The rest either wither or more to the rational world of selling their skill as a service. How many "starving artists" are there versus your JK Rawlings or George RR Martins? Every busboy and barrista in California has a script to sell someone.

For more information on why this is, I recommend "The Black Swan" by Taleb.

 Talys wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Again. Your morality does not equal my or necessarily anyone else's morality, no rationalization needed.

What isn't debatable is that recasting is covered under international IP treaties, and is both illegal and enforceable in every country that has signed the relevant treaty -- the fourth column in the table on this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

That includes China, and it isn't debatable. If an IP holder can prove that a recaster is selling counterfeit products, injunctive relief will be offered and sanctions will apply.

I think anyone who feels that stealing IP is not immoral should create an original work, try to make money off of it, and have it ripped off.

Again, the conversation is not debating whether or not the creation or sale of the recasts is illegal, it is; I have not disputed this and I dare you find a quote from me stating that. I have stated the fact, supported by the US Attorney's Office, that purchasing such items is not illegal (at least in the US).

The conversation that you have inserted yourself into has been about the supposed "immorality" of purchasing counterfeit or knockoff products. My contention is that mores are subjective on numerous levels dependent greatly on local and culture.

*in parts of the U.S. I presume you mean there

 TheKbob wrote:
Also, the success of art is no way indicative of the quality, as we live in a world where Twilight fan fiction is a multi billion dollar asset.

If you look at best paid positions, they are not artists. They are all those that provide a highly desired skill set that requires significant study or capability. They are also ones entirely constrained by time; a doctor or engineer can only manage or attend to so many customers in a given time period.

Artists, however, have built their entire livelihood on a subjective basis and with only a few managing great successes. The rest either wither or more to the rational world of selling their skill as a service. How many "starving artists" are there versus your JK Rawlings or George RR Martins? Every busboy and barrista in California has a script to sell someone.

For more information on why this is, I recommend "The Black Swan" by Taleb.

How dare you be so immoral as to download a song by a long dead artist. Don't you know his/her great-grandchildren have a right to receive money from their work? Seriously, the concept of Copyright lost all pretense of legitimacy when the length was changed to life plus 70 years. If the intent is to ensure that the artist benefits from their work, why demand that they continue to benefit 70 years after they're dead? Nope. That was created for the sole benefit of companies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
So, is the land raider I scratch-built from a pizza box an IP violation that needs to be reported and destroyed? And what if I decide to sell that creation on e-bay?

If its not, I don't see any reason why a "recast" land raider by non-GW producer is any more wrong.

The difference is that one is a single custom-made model that uses GW's ideas but isn't a direct copy of the GW kit, while the other is an exact copy of the original sold in large numbers as a for-profit business. And technically selling your scratch-built LR is illegal and GW could in theory take legal action against you over it. It's just not worth their time to go after someone selling a $1 pile of scrap cardboard.

And if I model it after WW1 tanks, I'm also copying GW? Also, GW, say hi to Giger.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"

The fact that YOU consider it immoral, doesn't make it so for everyone.

By any standard it is immoral. Have fun with trying to justify something so self evident.

Again, your post hoc justification of your immoral act isn't my concern, just pointing out it out. Own your immorality.

Have you completely studied every possible moral standard existing under the sun and reached this conclusion?

Bear in mind, I don't claim that buying recasts isn't immoral (nor that it is moral for that matter), just that holding everyone to your own purely subjective standard of morality is extremely presumptuous.

Apart from when you said it wasn't immoral, due to GW actions or the entitlement fuelled rant over their supposed treatment of you, of course.

Keep justifying and rationalising the immorality as just not that bad, I'll continue to point out it is certainly immoral. I care not for your opinion otherwise.

Paying someone to commit an illegal act on your behalf. That's what you do when you pay a recaster.

At best, you can point out that YOU THINK it's immoral.

TBH I feel this discussion is pointless further: I am well within my country granted legal rights as well as self-imposed moral rights to buy and own recasts, and you are well within your country granted legal rights as well as self-imposed moral rights to express your opinion about the fact, so let's just agree to disagree on the matter.

I see I need to elaborate.

To me this game and hobby is DIY, as long as you use GW's rules. In our group we are into modelling. We have made some great scenery basing it on recasting existing models, e.g. Stormraven. We've also recast some models such as Nurgle's Plague drones, Crisis suits etc. I see nothing wrong in that.

The rules make the game, for models use whatever you want. If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

 agnosto wrote:


Again, the conversation is not debating whether or not the creation or sale of the recasts is illegal, it is; I have not disputed this and I dare you find a quote from me stating that. I have stated the fact, supported by the US Attorney's Office, that purchasing such items is not illegal (at least in the US).

The conversation that you have inserted yourself into has been about the supposed "immorality" of purchasing counterfeit or knockoff products. My contention is that mores are subjective on numerous levels dependent greatly on local and culture.

The conversation is the topic at the topic of the thread: "How are recast sites legal?". It's not, "Is recasting moral?" -- which has been the topic of many threads in the past. The topic of THIS thread isn't about the legality of purchasing items for recasting, it's about the legality of websites that sell recast items.

Even so, I assure you that if you run a US company that *KNOWINGLY* buys counterfeit copy of Windows, for whatever reason, including feeling that Microsoft should sell what essentially costs 0 to produce for a price greater than 0, you will be screwed in a pretty serious way. If you are an individual who downloads an unlicensed movie, you could be hit with a monstrous fine, with a settlement that runs in thousands of dollars. Ask the folks who downloaded Hurt Locker.

I don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
I see I need to elaborate.

To me this game and hobby is DIY, as long as you use GW's rules. In our group we are into modelling. We have made some great scenery basing it on recasting existing models, e.g. Stormraven. We've also recast some models such as Nurgle's Plague drones, Crisis suits etc. I see nothing wrong in that.

The rules make the game, for models use whatever you want. If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

Recasting a model for your own use is perfectly legal (it falls explicitly under "Fair Use", same as photocopying a book). Recasting a model for resale is not legal (it falls under the same category as copying a book and selling it).

I don't think there's anything wrong at all if you take a stormraven and recast it for personal use. OTOH, I can't see how it would possibly be worth the $60 or so a stormraven model costs to buy to recast it.

@Vyxen -- wow, you took the words right out of my mouth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
So, is the land raider I scratch-built from a pizza box an IP violation that needs to be reported and destroyed? And what if I decide to sell that creation on e-bay?

If its not, I don't see any reason why a "recast" land raider by non-GW producer is any more wrong.

The difference is that one is a single custom-made model that uses GW's ideas but isn't a direct copy of the GW kit, while the other is an exact copy of the original sold in large numbers as a for-profit business. And technically selling your scratch-built LR is illegal and GW could in theory take legal action against you over it. It's just not worth their time to go after someone selling a $1 pile of scrap cardboard.

And if I model it after WW1 tanks, I'm also copying GW? Also, GW, say hi to Giger.

If you take a Revell or Tamiya model, recast it, and resell it, that's illegal.

If you take a Revell or Tamiya model, recast it, and use it for yourself, that is perfectly legal.

If you take a Revell or Tamiya model of a real-life tank for inspiration, and make your own model for resale, that's perfectly legal. And yes, you can call it exactly the same model, because Revell or Tamiya won't have a copyright on the name of the model.

If you take a GW model for inspiration, and make your own model, that MIGHT be perfectly legal; depending on whether and how much you copied or if there was some some extremely unique, distinctive elements, and obviously, if you called it the same thing. For instance, if you knocked off an Skitarii Walker or Onager, it would be pretty hard to argue and win in court.

I hope everyone who buys recasts one day has their own company that gets heavily pirated. It would be funny to see what side of the argument you are on then.

Vyxen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Again, the conversation is not debating whether or not the creation or sale of the recasts is illegal, it is; I have not disputed this and I dare you find a quote from me stating that. I have stated the fact, supported by the US Attorney's Office, that purchasing such items is not illegal (at least in the US).

The conversation that you have inserted yourself into has been about the supposed "immorality" of purchasing counterfeit or knockoff products. My contention is that mores are subjective on numerous levels dependent greatly on local and culture.

The conversation is the topic at the topic of the thread: "How are recast sites legal?". It's not, "Is recasting moral?" -- which has been the topic of many threads in the past. The topic of THIS thread isn't about the legality of purchasing items for recasting, it's about the legality of websites that sell recast items.

Even so, I assure you that if you run a US company that *KNOWINGLY* buys counterfeit copy of Windows, for whatever reason, including feeling that Microsoft should sell what essentially costs 0 to produce for a price greater than 0, you will be screwed in a pretty serious way. If you are an individual who downloads an unlicensed movie, you could be hit with a monstrous fine, with a settlement that runs in thousands of dollars. Ask the folks who downloaded Hurt Locker.

I don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
I see I need to elaborate.

To me this game and hobby is DIY, as long as you use GW's rules. In our group we are into modelling. We have made some great scenery basing it on recasting existing models, e.g. Stormraven. We've also recast some models such as Nurgle's Plague drones, Crisis suits etc. I see nothing wrong in that.

The rules make the game, for models use whatever you want. If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

Recasting a model for your own use is perfectly legal (it falls explicitly under "Fair Use", same as photocopying a book). Recasting a model for resale is not legal (it falls under the same category as copying a book and selling it).


I don't think there's anything wrong at all if you take a stormraven and recast it for personal use. OTOH, I can't see how it would possibly be worth the $60 or so a stormraven model costs to buy to recast it.

You missed my point. Ok, it was not explained well, I will try again.

If I can produce copies of Stormraven at a bargain, why couldn't GW do so? Why should I pay a gazillion for a model that is worth a couple of euros? Certainly copying from other sources can't be so expensive to warrant the prices?

Naw wrote:
If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

By that extension, Universal Music should close up shop, because they can't possibly compete with the prices at ThePirateBay.

That said, I have paid a gazillion for the models. Wish I had not.

Naw wrote:

If I can produce copies of Stormraven at a bargain, why couldn't GW do so? Why should I pay a gazillion for a model that is worth a couple of euros? Certainly copying from other sources can't be so expensive to warrant the prices?

Because you didn't invent it, Naw.

If I can reprint George Martin books for $5, and copy eBooks for free, why should anyone ever buy copies at Chapters or Amazon? Why should George Martin ever get a cent of my money? Why should HBO pay George Martin to produce the Game of Thrones TV Show?

The answer is because in civilized modern society, the value of an item is the manufacturing cost PLUS the value of the intellectual property -- not just the manufacturing cost.

Vyxen wrote:

The answer is because in civilized modern society, the value of an item is the manufacturing cost PLUS the value of the intellectual property -- not just the manufacturing cost.

Someone give this lady a medal. It couldn't be any simpler put than that. Exalted!

 Talys wrote:

Naw wrote:
If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

By that extension, Universal Music should close up shop, because they can't possibly compete with the prices at ThePirateBay.

And the European Whatever Manufacturers should close shop, because.. Oh but they have!

Money will go where it is cheapest. At least my car has not been built in China.

The amount of self entitlement and self justification in this thread is leaving me gob smacked.

Vyxen wrote:

Naw wrote:

If I can produce copies of Stormraven at a bargain, why couldn't GW do so? Why should I pay a gazillion for a model that is worth a couple of euros? Certainly copying from other sources can't be so expensive to warrant the prices?

Because you didn't invent it, Naw.

If I can reprint George Martin books for $5, and copy eBooks for free, why should anyone ever buy copies at Chapters or Amazon? Why should George Martin ever get a cent of my money? Why should HBO pay George Martin to produce the Game of Thrones TV Show?

The answer is because in civilized modern society, the value of an item is the manufacturing cost PLUS the value of the intellectual property -- not just the manufacturing cost.

Oh my.. Once more. Where are all your electronics, including your computer, built? Why?

When you answer that ask yourself why does GW charge an arm and a leg for five models that sell for profit with half of what they do? Why can't you see this side?

You are not supposed to owe the company to buy overpriced stuff, are you?

Vyxen wrote:


I don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.

[

And I've already discussed and shot down this argument. You have no right to income as of now. As an artist, there is nothing decreeing that somone should and will buy your wares. Rather, the only artists able to sell their wares are those that the market has, for some nearly random fashion deemed desirable.

Intelligent artists are much better suited to follow the lead of their technical based peers and offer their skills as services. There, the quality of their work determines the value of the service and can expect a greater degree of income.

And I chose my degree based on both interest and feasibility to provide for myself; to have a positive, if not great, lifetime return on investment of the both literal and opportunity cost of my education. There's nothing in this world that guarantees the payback of either, but basic application of thought says service based jobs are always going to be in abundance (at least until the singularity takes place) and those basing their profession on simple product output will always be displaced by more efficient ways of reproduction.

Or should we burn all the cotton gins and spinning jennys?

The countless people who pirate movies/music/games/etc just because they can would disagree with you. I suppose there are a few people who buy recasts to make some kind of ideological statement about how fair GW's prices are, but are they really that common compared to the people who only care about getting the cheapest possible price regardless of how ethical it is?

Buying a physical object and downloading a movie\music\game is a completely different ballgame. Comes down to ease of accessibility. Almost anyone can find a movie online to download or torrent, I can't really download a GW model. (well at least not until 3d printing gets a bit better, then that'll be a different ballgame to)

I can say personally, if the FW models where less expensive for me (as an American esp., where it's like 1 euro to like 1.50 American) I would buy them over the Chinese recasts. It's extremely cost prohibitive for me to buy anything from FW and have it shipped at there prices. I don't even really want to buy the physical copy of the rules book for the models at those prices.

Simply put, selling ideas puts you in the position of being only protected by arbitrary restrictions not known to common sense. Selling the skill of idea creation or implementation will mean you're always in business, if intelligent enough, as ideas themselves are not scarcity based.

Sorris wrote:

The countless people who pirate movies/music/games/etc just because they can would disagree with you. I suppose there are a few people who buy recasts to make some kind of ideological statement about how fair GW's prices are, but are they really that common compared to the people who only care about getting the cheapest possible price regardless of how ethical it is?

Buying a physical object and downloading a movie\music\game is a completely different ballgame. Comes down to ease of accessibility. Almost anyone can find a movie online to download or torrent, I can't really download a GW model. (well at least not until 3d printing gets a bit better, then that'll be a different ballgame to)

I can say personally, if the FW models where less expensive for me (as an American esp., where it's like 1 euro to like 1.50 American) I would buy them over the Chinese recasts. It's extremely cost prohibitive for me to buy anything from FW and have it shipped at there prices. I don't even really want to buy the physical copy of the rules book for the models at those prices.

No, Vyxen had it right. The value of an item in civilized society today is the manufacturing cost plus the value of the intellectual property (plus profit).

Just because you can't afford it doesn't make the alternatives more legal. Just because you can't afford or don't want to pay for IA2 doesn't make it acceptable, in the social contract as accepted by most citizens of this world, to simply steal it (by a bittorrent). I'm not saying people don't do it; I'm just saying, just because people do it doesn't make it right (moral) or legal.

Counter, we're assuming the arbitrary restrictions of IP creating false scarcity is the moral solution. The market is tending to say no, strongly so. We live in an era of ever reducing cost of reproduction of goods. The concept of idea ownership will be dwindling as such. The sister to copyright, patents, is already showing its age as most technological advances have barely a shelf life of a few years versus the twenty it protects.

And the mere concept that an idea needs to be protected for artists to create is asinine. Games Workshop ripped off a great deal of their original fiction and has since adapted into their own, quite profitably I might add.

 TheKbob wrote:

Vyxen wrote:


I don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.

[

And I've already discussed and shot down this argument. You have no right to income as of now. As an artist, there is nothing decreeing that somone should and will buy your wares. Rather, the only artists able to sell their wares are those that the market has, for some nearly random fashion deemed desirable.

Intelligent artists are much better suited to follow the lead of their technical based peers and offer their skills as services. There, the quality of their work determines the value of the service and can expect a greater degree of income.

And I chose my degree based on both interest and feasibility to provide for myself; to have a positive, if not great, lifetime return on investment of the both literal and opportunity cost of my education. There's nothing in this world that guarantees the payback of either, but basic application of thought says service based jobs are always going to be in abundance (at least until the singularity takes place) and those basing their profession on simple product output will always be displaced by more efficient ways of reproduction.

Or should we burn all the cotton gins and spinning jennys?

I am a professional photographer. You are right in that nobody has to buy my stuff.

But if someone wants to use one of my photographs, they will pay me based on what they're using it for. If it's going to go on the cover of a high circulation magazine, it will be a different price than someone who wants wedding photos for their family.

If someone uses one of my photos without my consent and without compensating me what I determine to be the price, there's going to be a lawsuit, and if they use it for a commercial purpose, I will get every single cent of profit they made off of it, plus punitive damages. I have successfully done this not just once, but twice, and settled for many times what it would have cost them to just pay me in the first place.

Never, ever, is there the expectation that MY intellectual property is valued at the cost of reproduction (effectively, zero). The ONLY time that my work is valued as a factor of my time is when I've been contracted to work in that fashion (for a show, or product shoot, for example). In that case, the client has all of the intellectual property rights, because they paid me for my time.

 Rippy wrote:
The amount of self entitlement and self justification in this thread is leaving me gob smacked.

That, really is what bothers me.

But anyways, I'm out of this one for a while again... I have no idea why I'm pissing my time away arguing about it. How do I get sucked into such things, lol.

Parting words -- @TheKbob, Vyxen -- I get it -- being able to marry an ongoing service with the product gives you better revenue. You'll make more money off an MMORPG or online or a F2P game than a adventure game that can just be copied and played locally. Or, in the case of 40k, rules that can be digitally copied. That still doesn't make it right (or legal) to pirate a game with no ongoing element.

Vyxen wrote:


I am a professional photographer. You are right in that nobody has to buy my stuff.

But if someone wants to use one of my photographs, they will pay me based on what they're using it for. If it's going to go on the cover of a high circulation magazine, it will be a different price than someone who wants wedding photos for their family.

If someone uses one of my photos without my consent and without compensating me what I determine to be the price, there's going to be a lawsuit, and if they use it for a commercial purpose, I will get every single cent of profit they made off of it, plus punitive damages. I have successfully done this not just once, but twice, and settled for many times what it would have cost them to just pay me in the first place.

Never, ever, is there the expectation that MY intellectual property is valued at the cost of reproduction (effectively, zero). The ONLY time that my work is valued as a factor of my time is when I've been contracted to work in that fashion (for a show, or product shoot, for example). In that case, the client has all of the intellectual property rights, because they paid me for my time.

You've I'll get paid based open the value of your service. And that value will be decreasing with time simply because the opportunity cost is being eaten up because camera technology is much stronger, photo editing software is simpler, and computer graphics technology is stronger.

If you're selling your ability for the right time, right place, congratulations, you meet the criteria. If you're just popping photos and plopping them for sale online, you're going to just open yourself up to knock off and reproduction. The latter is a fools errand.

Art does have value but due to its subjectivity and lowering barrier to succeed, unlike technical skills, you're services will only get cheaper.

Intellectual Property is entirely busted and a product of bygone time. It's artificial scarcity and like any artifical barrier, the market will oppose it. Strongly. And no amount of gnashing teeth or "it's not moral" will stop it. Because eventually it will become unable to be enforced.

Vyxen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Again, the conversation is not debating whether or not the creation or sale of the recasts is illegal, it is; I have not disputed this and I dare you find a quote from me stating that. I have stated the fact, supported by the US Attorney's Office, that purchasing such items is not illegal (at least in the US).

The conversation that you have inserted yourself into has been about the supposed "immorality" of purchasing counterfeit or knockoff products. My contention is that mores are subjective on numerous levels dependent greatly on local and culture.

The conversation is the topic at the topic of the thread: "How are recast sites legal?". It's not, "Is recasting moral?" -- which has been the topic of many threads in the past. The topic of THIS thread isn't about the legality of purchasing items for recasting, it's about the legality of websites that sell recast items.

Congratulations, you win the "I have no idea what I'm commenting on but I want so say something really bad" award for this thread. Myself and two other posters were discussing the moral implications of purchasing knockoff products. You may argue that our conversation was off-topic but, meh. I think we've pretty well established that websites and sales of knockoffs are well and truly illegal so all that's really left is to discuss related topics.

Vyxen wrote:
so, I assure you that if you run a US company that *KNOWINGLY* buys counterfeit copy of Windows, for whatever reason, including feeling that Microsoft should sell what essentially costs 0 to produce for a price greater than 0, you will be screwed in a pretty serious way. If you are an individual who downloads an unlicensed movie, you could be hit with a monstrous fine, with a settlement that runs in thousands of dollars. Ask the folks who downloaded Hurt Locker.

Apple, meet orange. The DMCA is a completely different animal and governs such things as software, movies, and music PIRACY. Counterfeit or knockoff products are NOT piracy and not covered by the DMCA or related laws.

Vyxen wrote:
don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.

I have. I have been ripped off in a country where I had zero protections (South Korea) and guess what, I still feel the same way, not entitled to limitlessly benefit from my creative works. I wrote a book, it was published, sold a few thousand copies and my Korean "partner" kept all the money and threatened to turn me over to immigration for working outside of my employment contract if I complained which would have resulted in my expulsion from the country; my employer didn't have any issues with the extra work but the Korean government would have. The good news is that I got my name in the front of the book, that I wrote, as a contributor; very kind of him, yay me.

Life plus 70 years is asinine. Life is crazy. If you write a book, song, etc and can't make enough money off of it to justify doing the work inside 10 years, you either did it because you love doing it or you suck and need to move on to something else.

 agnosto wrote:

Life plus 70 years is asinine. Life is crazy. If you write a book, song, etc and can't make enough money off of it to justify doing the work inside 10 years, you either did it because you love doing it or you suck and need to move on to something else.

Pretty much it. Being first to the market for a new idea is your reward. Once novelty is gone, enforcing it arbitrarily will not put said car back in the bag.

yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sorris wrote:

The countless people who pirate movies/music/games/etc just because they can would disagree with you. I suppose there are a few people who buy recasts to make some kind of ideological statement about how fair GW's prices are, but are they really that common compared to the people who only care about getting the cheapest possible price regardless of how ethical it is?

Buying a physical object and downloading a movie\music\game is a completely different ballgame. Comes down to ease of accessibility. Almost anyone can find a movie online to download or torrent, I can't really download a GW model. (well at least not until 3d printing gets a bit better, then that'll be a different ballgame to)

I can say personally, if the FW models where less expensive for me (as an American esp., where it's like 1 euro to like 1.50 American) I would buy them over the Chinese recasts. It's extremely cost prohibitive for me to buy anything from FW and have it shipped at there prices. I don't even really want to buy the physical copy of the rules book for the models at those prices.

Again, it is a luxury commodity, you won't die without it, therefore your justification for IP infringement is pathetic. "I can't afford it but I want it" isn't an excuse. They set their prices for their goods, you either buy it or don't based on your Ability to. Well, people who don't care about partaking in illegal activities won't just move on. (Yes yes, the buying of it part isn't illegal, you are still apart of the illegal process).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

By any standard it is immoral.

What a strange thing to say.

I remember this discussion happening years ago, and someone who had lived in China pointed out that a large part of the reason that knock-offs are so prevalent there is that culturally, they simply don't see intellectual property as an actual thing. In that sort of environment, despite the fact that their government has signed an international treaty promising to adhere to certain standards, it's very easy to imagine that the average guy on the street would not see a moral issue with ignoring the rules.

We see the same thing in western culture. Intellectual property isn't some fundamental law of the universe. It's a set of imaginary rules that we have created in order to (supposedly) allow the people who create things to fairly profit from them. Unless you talk to opponents of intellectual property law, in which case it's a set of imaginary rules put in place to protect the interests of mega-corporations like Disney, that frequently wind up screwing over the little guy. And to people with that viewpoint, it's very possible that ignoring those laws wouldn't be considered immoral in the slightest.

If anyone from any country wants to trade in to a nation (especially to make a profit themselves), they should understand the laws and culture of the nation they are trading in to. It is not an excuse.

 agnosto wrote:

Congratulations, you win the "I have no idea what I'm commenting on but I want so say something really bad" award for this thread. Myself and two other posters were discussing the moral implications of purchasing knockoff products. You may argue that our conversation was off-topic but, meh. I think we've pretty well established that websites and sales of knockoffs are well and truly illegal so all that's really left is to discuss related topics.

Then start a new thread. Those are free, you know?

 agnosto wrote:

Apple, meet orange. The DMCA is a completely different animal and governs such things as software, movies, and music PIRACY. Counterfeit or knockoff products are NOT piracy and not covered by the DMCA or related laws.

Tell that to Luis Vuitton, and the person who sells Luis Vuitton out of the back of his store. Wait, why doesn't he sell it in the FRONT of his store?

 agnosto wrote:

I have. I have been ripped off in a country where I had zero protections (South Korea) and guess what, I still feel the same way, not entitled to limitlessly benefit from my creative works. I wrote a book, it was published, sold a few thousand copies and my Korean "partner" kept all the money and threatened to turn me over to immigration for working outside of my employment contract if I complained which would have resulted in my expulsion from the country; my employer didn't have any issues with the extra work but the Korean government would have. The good news is that I got my name in the front of the book, that I wrote, as a contributor; very kind of him, yay me.

Life plus 70 years is asinine. Life is crazy. If you write a book, song, etc and can't make enough money off of it to justify doing the work inside 10 years, you either did it because you love doing it or you suck and need to move on to something else.

This is the law of the land of most nations, and the premise under which artists work. Feel free to disagree with it, in which case you should support more Libertarian governments. Although I doubt that even that the craziest of such wouldn't argue for a 10 year copyright.

Sorris wrote:
I can say personally, if the FW models where less expensive for me (as an American esp., where it's like 1 euro to like 1.50 American) I would buy them over the Chinese recasts. It's extremely cost prohibitive for me to buy anything from FW and have it shipped at there prices. I don't even really want to buy the physical copy of the rules book for the models at those prices.

This is so funny coming from an American. Do you guys realize that you get goods almost everything that matters cheaper than everyone else, anywhere else in the world? Don't believe me? Look up prices for things in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, or France.

Do you realize that a ton of Canadians buy things in the US, have it shipped to a pickup point near the border, and drive across to pick it up because we can save anywhere from 25% - 50%?

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

.

If you set up your entirely livelihood unto chasing the black swan, then you're the one setting yourself up for failure. Arts as a product is not sustainable for large swaths of people. Thanks to the species ability to share and grow knowledge, not restrict it's flow, we benefits from the ideas of millions living now and before us. Perhaps billions if we count all of the slow grind of humanity.

Basing your worth on plunking out a few writings, pictures or creations and hoping they sell on their merits alone versus selling your ability as a service is your own problem. You make yourself vulnerable to an inherent market force in grained in our species.

It sounds cold and harsh, but welcome to reality. Technology changes business. Adapt or don't.

Vyxen wrote:

Then start a new thread. Those are free, you know?

If you feel our discussion on the morality of purchasing recasts was so far off-topic, I recommend that you use the yellow triangle of friendship...or just ignore it and move on.

Vyxen wrote:
Tell that to Luis Vuitton, and the person who sells Luis Vuitton out of the back of his store. Wait, why doesn't he sell it in the FRONT of his store?

Again. Selling such products is illegal, purchasing/owning them is not (at least in the US). Your point about software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs, they're covered under different laws.

Vyxen wrote:
This is the law of the land of most nations, and the premise under which artists work. Feel free to disagree with it, in which case you should support more Libertarian governments. Although I doubt that even that the craziest of such wouldn't argue for a 10 year copyright.

Fair enough, 10 years was a throwaway number, but the original 25 years made much more sense than any number that extends beyond the life of the artist/creator.

Vyxen wrote:
Recasting a model for your own use is perfectly legal (it falls explicitly under "Fair Use", same as photocopying a book)

Not according to several IP lawyers who have commented on similar discussions over the years.

'Fair Use' (which is an American idea, and doesn't apply to most other countries) allows you to do more or less what you want with the things you buy. It doesn't allow you to reproduce them.

 agnosto wrote:

Vyxen wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
Tell that to Luis Vuitton, and the person who sells Luis Vuitton out of the back of his store. Wait, why doesn't he sell it in the FRONT of his store?

Again. Selling such products is illegal, purchasing/owning them is not (at least in the US). Your point about software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs, they're covered under different laws.

The laws do vary. For example, in the US and UK, the individual consumer is not breaking any laws. However, if subsequently sell the item, you may not use any trademarks or trade names of the original product, and must clearly identify it as replica/knock-off/counterfeit. In France, it is illegal to buy knockoffs. In all three, it is illegal to sell them and enforcement is fast and furious.

Now, you are a funny guy. On one hand, you want to talk about morality, on the other hand, you talk say software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs because they're covered by different laws.

So, which is it? If you want to talk about morality, a knockoff of Windows is a great comparison to a knockoff of an Imperial Knight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
Recasting a model for your own use is perfectly legal (it falls explicitly under "Fair Use", same as photocopying a book)

Not according to several IP lawyers who have commented on similar discussions over the years.

'Fair Use' (which is an American idea, and doesn't apply to most other countries) allows you to do more or less what you want with the things you buy. It doesn't allow you to reproduce them.

I'll admit to not being a fair use expert. But I do know that one is allowed to copy music that one has purchased from one medium to another (for example, my CD to my iPod); and that one is permitted to photocopy a book (from cover to cover if you wish) for personal use, legally. Otherwise, public libraries would be shut down

Edits: ARRRGH! the quotes! I keep messing it up lol.

Vyxen wrote:
I'll admit to not being a fair use expert. But I do know that one is allowed to copy music that one has purchased from one medium to another (for example, my CD to my iPod); and that one is permitted to photocopy a book (from cover to cover if you wish) for personal use, legally. Otherwise, public libraries would be shut down

Music and software have specific exceptions allowing you to make 'backup' copies in the US. The rules vary elsewhere... Up until recently here in Oz, putting a CD onto your iPod was illegal. They got around that by bringing in a 'format shifting' allowance, which lets people copy their own music, books and movies (provided there is no DRM) so long as the copy is a different format to the original.

The rules on photocopying books vary widely from country to country. No idea what the rule is in the US. In the UK, 'limited' copying (ie: part of a book, but not the whole thing) is allowed for educational purposes only. Australia used to allow 10% of the book to be copied, although the format shift rule allows for the whole thing to be copied to a different format (scanned to put onto an eReader, for example).

It's nowhere near as simple as 'copying stuff for your own use is fine'...

 insaniak wrote:

It's nowhere near as simple as 'copying stuff for your own use is fine'...

Fair enough! You sir, are a font of knowledge.

 insaniak wrote:

It's nowhere near as simple as 'copying stuff for your own use is fine'...

... and gets even more complicated when you are distributing those copies, regardless of whether you do so for profit or not. When you base an entire business on doing so, that's even worse.

Vyxen wrote:

The laws do vary. For example, in the US and UK, the individual consumer is not breaking any laws. However, if subsequently sell the item, you may not use any trademarks or trade names of the original product, and must clearly identify it as replica/knock-off/counterfeit. In France, it is illegal to buy knockoffs. In all three, it is illegal to sell them and enforcement is fast and furious.

Now, you are a funny guy. On one hand, you want to talk about morality, on the other hand, you talk say software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs because they're covered by different laws.

So, which is it? If you want to talk about morality, a knockoff of Windows is a great comparison to a knockoff of an Imperial Knight.

I'll not rehash the whole discussion that I was having earlier in the thread about morality but at least it was in relation to the purchase of recasts not the pirating of software which is a separate issue entirely. Though if you want to ask me how I feel about it; I would say that the societal norms are that piracy is immoral vs purchasing recasts not so much due to the variation in the law. Note that the mores of society can change and result in the changing of laws as a result so at some point purchasing recasts may become illegal in the US and therefor be considered immoral from an overall societal standpoint.

It's an interesting discussion, whether laws reflect the mores of society or vice versa but not entirely relevant to the topic at hand. So yes, one can be seen as immoral and the other not based upon the collective values of society as evidenced through that society's laws.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

.

If you set up your entirely livelihood unto chasing the black swan, then you're the one setting yourself up for failure. Arts as a product is not sustainable for large swaths of people. Thanks to the species ability to share and grow knowledge, not restrict it's flow, we benefits from the ideas of millions living now and before us. Perhaps billions if we count all of the slow grind of humanity.

Basing your worth on plunking out a few writings, pictures or creations and hoping they sell on their merits alone versus selling your ability as a service is your own problem. You make yourself vulnerable to an inherent market force in grained in our species.

It sounds cold and harsh, but welcome to reality. Technology changes business. Adapt or don't.

Huh? I didn't say go out and spend your whole life trying to invent one thing and letting it get stale. I am saying that if you own something, and someone else literally steals it to make money themselves, your opinion on the matter would change. Just because you think we as a culture should be able to share ideas, doesn't mean others can steal people's IP for a profit.

 agnosto wrote:

Vyxen wrote:

The laws do vary. For example, in the US and UK, the individual consumer is not breaking any laws. However, if subsequently sell the item, you may not use any trademarks or trade names of the original product, and must clearly identify it as replica/knock-off/counterfeit. In France, it is illegal to buy knockoffs. In all three, it is illegal to sell them and enforcement is fast and furious.

Now, you are a funny guy. On one hand, you want to talk about morality, on the other hand, you talk say software piracy has nothing to do with knockoffs because they're covered by different laws.

So, which is it? If you want to talk about morality, a knockoff of Windows is a great comparison to a knockoff of an Imperial Knight.

I'll not rehash the whole discussion that I was having earlier in the thread about morality but at least it was in relation to the purchase of recasts not the pirating of software which is a separate issue entirely. Though if you want to ask me how I feel about it; I would say that the societal norms are that piracy is immoral vs purchasing recasts not so much due to the variation in the law. Note that the mores of society can change and result in the changing of laws as a result so at some point purchasing recasts may become illegal in the US and therefor be considered immoral from an overall societal standpoint.

It's an interesting discussion, whether laws reflect the mores of society or vice versa but not entirely relevant to the topic at hand. So yes, one can be seen as immoral and the other not based upon the collective values of society as evidenced through that society's laws.

I'm not talking about downloading a piece of software off the Internet. I'm talking about buying a packaged product that is counterfeit, like Windows. With a fake CD, fake box, fake papers, and all that. I don't see how that's any different than buying a fake handbag, or a fake Warhammer model.

Would you agree that a knockoff Luis Vuitton handbag is no different than a knockoff Storm Raven?

 Rippy wrote:

Huh? I didn't say go out and spend your whole life trying to invent one thing and letting it get stale. I am saying that if you own something, and someone else literally steals it to make money themselves, your opinion on the matter would change. Just because you think we as a culture should be able to share ideas, doesn't mean others can steal people's IP for a profit.

Novel concept: you cannot own an idea. Whether the law says so or otherwise, once it's in the wild, you cannot control it.

And you don't get what I'm saying. Making a profession out if selling artisic items of any trade is a losing bet. Selling your service as an artist is the best means to success.

So if you steal my physical widget, good on you, that's theft. If you take my idea, I can't make you "give it back". I'll either have to stamp feet and complain or be smarter and come up with a new one.

"IP for profit ", to me, is a dumb concept. I'd cede ground to allow notion of IP, as compromise is key, but that doesn't mean it defies logic or market forces. Coming up with a novel way of fabricating something, a medicine, or scientific process should have ability to be protected under a limited time frame to cover the concept to market period, as they are significantly costly ventures that are important for society.

The idea of I own the idea of dudes in space with big armor is stupid. And serves nothing to push forward any medium. Patents have a measurable purpose. Copyright has no real measurable worth outside of those defending an unsustainable business practice.

So steal my ideas. I'll just have to come up with better ones. (or continue working in a technical service position).

I am not arguing the ownership of ideas mate. I am saying "don't recast, as the recast for profit is theft". Reread what I wrote.
Again it doesn't matter what you think if IP theft is a good concept or not, it is simply IP theft.

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

I can absolutely certain that I will not care about any level of piracy of any work I create that occurs up to 70 years after my death. I feel pretty confident in guaranteeing that I will have no strong feelings one way or the other.

And, likewise, I'm not arguing whether it's the law or not. I'm really not sure what you're trying to dig at here.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

I can absolutely certain that I will not care about any level of piracy of any work I create that occurs up to 70 years after my death. I feel pretty confident in guaranteeing that I will have no strong feelings one way or the other.

And, likewise, I'm not arguing whether it's the law or not. I'm really not sure what you're trying to dig at here.

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

 Rippy wrote:
I am not arguing the ownership of ideas mate. I am saying "don't recast, as the recast for profit is theft". Reread what I wrote.
Again it doesn't matter what you think if IP theft is a good concept or not, it is simply IP theft.

Still wrong. It's copyright infringement. Not theft. You cannot steal concepts, ideas, etc. By saying theft, you're buying into the corporate lobbyists and their jargon. And it's a civil matter at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

Giving your heirs money us actually one of the worst ways to ensure their success. The best way is to foster learning and invest in their education, which doesn't need to be done based on your 1980s single smash hit (that you yourself cannot recreate the success because popularity is a black swan, subject to random chance).

So wrong again.

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

In all honesty, I'll be damned if I let my grandchildren get a living out of things I've done or achieved.

Things like books should have a fixed copyright time (i.e. 30 years or so) and go straight to public domain after that. Mr. Lazyass Heir can go earn his own living instead of parasiting from what someone related to them did a lifetime ago.

So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?

Anyone should be able to write a game about Gandalf and Frodo? Someone should be able to make a Book 4 of the Lord of the Rings?

I think not.

The Lord of the Rings franchise is rightly not in the public domain, though one day, it will be.

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
yeah, the whole "life plus 70 years" thing is a bit absurd, but you can thank Disney for that.

Again, I hope you make something big and people pirate it. So you can see the folly of your words.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with it or not, it is still the law buddy.

I can absolutely certain that I will not care about any level of piracy of any work I create that occurs up to 70 years after my death. I feel pretty confident in guaranteeing that I will have no strong feelings one way or the other.

And, likewise, I'm not arguing whether it's the law or not. I'm really not sure what you're trying to dig at here.

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

My grandchildren can make their own damn IP to profit off of in that case. The idea that they deserve continual revenues from the exclusive rights to something created for public consumption up to a lifetime after my death is, quite frankly, absurd. Patent protection certainly doesn't last that long. The idea that I don't care about grandchildren because I think the IP laws last far too long is likewise absurd, and more than a little insulting.

Any sort of "legacy" will be the work itself.

Vyxen wrote:

I'm not talking about downloading a piece of software off the Internet. I'm talking about buying a packaged product that is counterfeit, like Windows. With a fake CD, fake box, fake papers, and all that. I don't see how that's any different than buying a fake handbag, or a fake Warhammer model.

Would you agree that a knockoff Luis Vuitton handbag is no different than a knockoff Storm Raven?

Digital products like software are covered under the DMCA, even if they are a packaged product and are a different animal, legally speaking, to fake handbags. You may not see a difference yet the law does.

I agree that there is no difference between a knockoff handbag and a knockoff storm raven and current law in the US agrees.

 Korinov wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

In all honesty, I'll be damned if I let my grandchildren get a living out of things I've done or achieved.

Things like books should have a fixed copyright time (i.e. 30 years or so) and go straight to public domain after that. Mr. Lazyass Heir can go earn his own living instead of parasiting from what someone related to them did a lifetime ago.

Some people who stand to inherit fortunes may disagree with you. Some people with fortunes to pass to their children and grandchildren may also disagree with your characterization of their successors being just Mr. Layzyass Heir being a parasite.

Like me, for example! I'm a photographer and I love it as a profession and passion. I'm pretty good, too. But I could have never done it without the support of my family, because it's not a profession that pays very well as you start out, and it's not really easy to start a family being a photographer. But because I come from a well-to-do family, I could do something that I love, instead of grinding out a job that I don't. I have two kids, and I want to give them the best start to life, hope they achieve more than me (but will love them more than anything no matter what), and I will be happy to pass on all that I possess to them.

Glad you're bitter that some people have it better than you, though.

There's a difference between not leaving them a huge fortune to live off of (which is what I believe Korinov was talking about), and not helping them get started in life.

My grandparents helped me pay for school. They're did not leave me a gigantic pile of inheritance money to live off of however (though they certainly could have).

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's a difference between not leaving them a huge fortune to live off of (which is what I believe Korinov was talking about), and not helping them get started in life.

My grandparents helped me pay for school. They're did not leave me a gigantic pile of inheritance money to live off of however (though they certainly could have).

No, but one day, you'll be 70, and your parents will pass away. Maybe you've done pretty well in life, but if they leave you a few hundred thousand dollars, it will make your retirement a lot easier. If I'm in that situation, I'd rather leave the money I hadn't used to my kids (who hopefully will be seniors!), rather than to give it away to someone else.

Along the way, I'll be happy to help them whenever I can. I'm not rich, but I'd love to buy my son his first car. I'd love to help my daughter put a down payment on her home. To me, that's a joy of parenthood, not a way to make them lazy. Like everything, there's a happy in-between -- somewhere between the parents that boot you out at 18 and the Paris Hilton's parents.

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?

Anyone should be able to write a game about Gandalf and Frodo? Someone should be able to make a Book 4 of the Lord of the Rings?

I think not.

The Lord of the Rings franchise is rightly not in the public domain, though one day, it will be.

Correct. Yes. Yes.

We already have that. It's called fanfiction. Change the names and from vampires to CEOs and you have a "BRAND NEW!" IP.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vyxen wrote:

Some people who stand to inherit fortunes may disagree with you. Some people with fortunes to pass to their children and grandchildren may also disagree with your characterization of their successors being just Mr. Layzyass Heir being a parasite.

Like me, for example! I'm a photographer and I love it as a profession and passion. I'm pretty good, too. But I could have never done it without the support of my family, because it's not a profession that pays very well as you start out, and it's not really easy to start a family being a photographer. But because I come from a well-to-do family, I could do something that I love, instead of grinding out a job that I don't. I have two kids, and I want to give them the best start to life, hope they achieve more than me (but will love them more than anything no matter what), and I will be happy to pass on all that I possess to them.

Glad you're bitter that some people have it better than you, though.

If your family chooses to use their earned resources to subsidize an unsustainable practice, that's their choice. I'd rather not have laws in place to force everyone to pay for them. We already know IP has lead to a massive ton of broken window fallacy style law suits.

Also, if you want a better, inverse anecdote, Bill Gates is leaving his children little in inheritance as he knows success is earned, never given. Seems to be a pretty successful dude. I also hear he flagrantly didn't care about IP...

 TheKbob wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I am not arguing the ownership of ideas mate. I am saying "don't recast, as the recast for profit is theft". Reread what I wrote.
Again it doesn't matter what you think if IP theft is a good concept or not, it is simply IP theft.

Still wrong. It's copyright infringement. Not theft. You cannot steal concepts, ideas, etc. By saying theft, you're buying into the corporate lobbyists and their jargon. And it's a civil matter at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

Giving your heirs money us actually one of the worst ways to ensure their success. The best way is to foster learning and invest in their education, which doesn't need to be done based on your 1980s single smash hit (that you yourself cannot recreate the success because popularity is a black swan, subject to random chance).

So wrong again.

change my wording of theft to infringing someone's IP. Same thing.

I love the cry of everyone saying that handing down a company or riches makes people lazy. My god, are you reading what you are typing. You are making terrible arguments for the sake of being on the other side of the fence. If you have a business or Company, or even an IP worth money, you train them and nurture them to make the most of that money/company. Stop being daft.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

You obviously don't care about your grandchildren or your legacy either. That was my dig. It is your right to hand it down as inheritance.

In all honesty, I'll be damned if I let my grandchildren get a living out of things I've done or achieved.

Things like books should have a fixed copyright time (i.e. 30 years or so) and go straight to public domain after that. Mr. Lazyass Heir can go earn his own living instead of parasiting from what someone related to them did a lifetime ago.

Glad you are not my grandparent/father. Your first thought is they are parasites, instead of being nurtured and taught/trained to handle money? Maybe put the recasted miniatures down for a while and focus on parenting.

 TheKbob wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?

Anyone should be able to write a game about Gandalf and Frodo? Someone should be able to make a Book 4 of the Lord of the Rings?

I think not.

The Lord of the Rings franchise is rightly not in the public domain, though one day, it will be.

Correct. Yes. Yes.

We already have that. It's called fanfiction. Change the names and from vampires to CEOs and you have a "BRAND NEW!" IP.

There's fanfic of stuff days after it's published. That has nothing to do with copyrights. Fanfic is not authorized by the author/publisher, and is almost never professionally published. It may or may not infringe on copyright, but if it ever makes significant money, I assure you, there will be a whopper lawsuit.

If you switch things around enough that it's "original", you do have brand new IP. Or, Warhammer 40k.

When you straight up say "you obviously don't care about your grandchildren" and other such nonsense because people take issue with the lengths of IP protections, you've crossed the line where you can tell other people to "stop being daft".

 Rippy wrote:

change my wording of theft to infringing someone's IP. Same thing.

I love the cry of everyone saying that handing down a company or riches makes people lazy. My god, are you reading what you are typing. You are making terrible arguments for the sake of being on the other side of the fence. If you have a business or Company, or even an IP worth money, you train them and nurture them to make the most of that money/company. Stop being daft.

Infringement is not theft, at least in the USA. The US Supreme Court has said as such. Apply what ruling your nation has determined. No matter what, its all still arbitrary as you cannot own ideas.

If you instead invest in the best service or being the best at something, you're likely more to succeed than being the most creative. Rarely the inventor of something is also the greatest beneficiary of the idea. The one that makes it marketable and economically sound is usually the winner. Again, the reality, not the feel good, fluffy reasoning.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

change my wording of theft to infringing someone's IP. Same thing.

I love the cry of everyone saying that handing down a company or riches makes people lazy. My god, are you reading what you are typing. You are making terrible arguments for the sake of being on the other side of the fence. If you have a business or Company, or even an IP worth money, you train them and nurture them to make the most of that money/company. Stop being daft.

Infringement is not theft, at least in the USA. The US Supreme Court has said as such. Apply what ruling your nation has determined. No matter what, its all still arbitrary as you cannot own ideas.

If you instead invest in the best service or being the best at something, you're likely more to succeed than being the most creative. Rarely the inventor of something is also the greatest beneficiary of the idea. The one that makes it marketable and economically sound is usually the winner. Again, the reality, not the feel good, fluffy reasoning.

You have again missed the point. Whooooosh!

Vyxen wrote:

Along the way, I'll be happy to help them whenever I can. I'm not rich, but I'd love to buy my son his first car. I'd love to help my daughter put a down payment on her home. To me, that's a joy of parenthood, not a way to make them lazy. Like everything, there's a happy in-between -- somewhere between the parents that boot you out at 18 and the Paris Hilton's parents.

There's actual research that says doing this for your children actually hurts them in the long run. Making them earn everything, fueled ambitions, but starved just enough of resources creates a basis for success. I'm afraid I can't recall the specific book I read recently that discussed this. I know it's in "Millionaire Next Door" however some of the premises in that book are self gratifying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:
[
You have again missed the point. Whooooosh!

Nope, I haven't. I have actual fact on my side. I can back up my arguments with research, that just takes far long. And I think you're misappropriating trademark versus IP.

You can own a registered trademark. And this has measurable outcomes of implementing.

 TheKbob wrote:

Vyxen wrote:

Along the way, I'll be happy to help them whenever I can. I'm not rich, but I'd love to buy my son his first car. I'd love to help my daughter put a down payment on her home. To me, that's a joy of parenthood, not a way to make them lazy. Like everything, there's a happy in-between -- somewhere between the parents that boot you out at 18 and the Paris Hilton's parents.

There's actual research that says doing this for your children actually hurts them in the long run. Making them earn everything, fueled ambitions, but starved just enough of resources creates a basis for success. I'm afraid I can't recall the specific book I read recently that discussed this. I know it's in "Millionaire Next Door" however some of the premises in that book are self gratifying.

You have again missed the point. Whooosh!
It isn't the point of if it is good for them Anyway. It is the point of it is your right too. Yes I admit handing a 16 year old 1 million dollars and saying "go nuts" is a terrible idea. Teaching them how to invest, how to use the money for professional growth, that is a great thing.

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?.

Not really, no.

Copyright is supposed to protect the rights of the creator of the work. There is absolutely no logical reason for that to transfer to someone else on the creator's death. The only reason it does is because every time Mickey Mouse starts approaching the end of his copyright tenure, Disney campaigns to get the law changed.

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?.

Not really, no.

Copyright is supposed to protect the rights of the creator of the work. There is absolutely no logical reason for that to transfer to someone else on the creator's death. The only reason it does is because every time Mickey Mouse starts approaching the end of his copyright tenure, Disney campaigns to get the law changed.

So anyone should be able to make money off Tolkiens property which his kids inherited?

 Rippy wrote:

You have again missed the point. Whooosh!
It isn't the point of if it is good for them Anyway. It is the point of it is your right too. Yes I admit handing a 16 year old 1 million dollars and saying "go nuts" is a terrible idea. Teaching them how to invest, how to use the money for professional growth, that is a great thing.

So your point is give your kids good education, then yes. Giving them any monetary insensitive outside of actual earnings is negative. That's easy enough but that what was not originally stated. So if by back pedaling then yes, we agree.

Once the original creator of the work dies, yes, their creations should enter public domain.

Because once the original creator is dead, the reason for copyright protection is removed.

Copyright was never intended to protect an idea through multiple generations. It was only supposed to allow the creator of something to fairly profit from their creation.

 Rippy wrote:


So anyone should be able to make money off Tolkiens property which his kids inherited?

Why should they even "inherit" it, it being something inherently arbitrary itself? So more asinine after another is smart? Sure.

And yes, anybody.

 Rippy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?.

Not really, no.

Copyright is supposed to protect the rights of the creator of the work. There is absolutely no logical reason for that to transfer to someone else on the creator's death. The only reason it does is because every time Mickey Mouse starts approaching the end of his copyright tenure, Disney campaigns to get the law changed.

So anyone should be able to make money off Tolkiens property which his kids inherited?

After IIRC 2050 all of Tolkein's works will be in the public domain either way unless the law gets changed to extend it...again. I believe the Hobbit will enter the Public Domain is seventeen years.

But yeah, they didn't write it, it's not their work. Why shouldn't someone else be able to take that story, decades after the death of the author and a lifetime after piblication, and do things with it?

Okay, I'll bite!

So, what happens if company produces a book, that is a collaborative work of 5 authors, the youngest of whom is 19, and the eldest is 90?

Should the copyright expire in 1 year, when the oldest author dies, in 70 years, when the youngest author dies, or after the company goes out of business, 200 years in the future?

What if the book is a collaborative work of 20 authors? I'm not talking about 20 short stories; I'm talking about 20 authors that collaborate and create 1 unified work, for 1 incorporated entity, owned by 100,000 shareholders.

Let's say that collaborative work results in a smashing success that leads to a 15 season television series, 3 spinoffs, and 10 feature films. Why shouldn't the company, which invested into this idea, be the sole owner to that intellectual property?

As someone who writes computer software for a living, I am glad I live in the real world -- you know, the ones where actual laws that really exist and are enforced generate problems and disincentives for IP thieves -- rather than the world that some of you seem to fancy

Vyxen wrote:
Okay, I'll bite!

So, what happens if company produces a book, that is a collaborative work of 5 authors, the youngest of whom is 19, and the eldest is 90?

Companies being involved complicates things somewhat, and is the reason that the laws were changed to a time period rather than just the life of the creator. From that point, opinions vary on just how long that time period should be.

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
Okay, I'll bite!

So, what happens if company produces a book, that is a collaborative work of 5 authors, the youngest of whom is 19, and the eldest is 90?

Companies being involved complicates things somewhat, and is the reason that the laws were changed to a time period rather than just the life of the creator. From that point, opinions vary on just how long that time period should be.

Yes, it does. If it's better for companies in any material sense, every author will just incorporate, and give shares of their company to their kids, spouse and that sort of thing, so that the IP succeeds them smoothly.

Even with dual authorship you have issues. A lot of older successful authors, like Tom Clancy or Clive Cussler write (I say that generously) books "with" someone else, typically much younger. Both are listed as authors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, just so we're clear on actual, real laws that are recognized by the US and pretty much every country you would ever want to visit:

1. Original works created on or after 1978 are valid for life + 70 years after death. With it's jointly created, the 70 years kicks in after the LAST AUTHOR dies.

2. Where the copyright owner is not the creator of the work (like a company), it's the earlier of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication.

Vyxen wrote:
Okay, I'll bite!

So, what happens if company produces a book, that is a collaborative work of 5 authors, the youngest of whom is 19, and the eldest is 90?

Should the copyright expire in 1 year, when the oldest author dies, in 70 years, when the youngest author dies, or after the company goes out of business, 200 years in the future?

That would be after the death of the last author.

What if the book is a collaborative work of 20 authors? I'm not talking about 20 short stories; I'm talking about 20 authors that collaborate and create 1 unified work, for 1 incorporated entity, owned by 100,000 shareholders.

Let's say that collaborative work results in a smashing success that leads to a 15 season television series, 3 spinoffs, and 10 feature films. Why shouldn't the company, which invested into this idea, be the sole owner to that intellectual property?

They usually are. However, again, corporate works don't have an unlimited copyright span even today.

Ultimately, much like patents, we're talking about protections which were designed to provide incentive to produce new works, but instead have been turned to milking old works forever.

Vaktathi -- I was being a bit of a tart before. I kind of regretted it, because I do know what the actual laws are (70 years after death of last author, or for a commissioned work 95 years after publication, or 120 years after writing).

 Talys wrote:
As someone who writes computer software for a living, I am glad I live in the real world -- you know, the ones where actual laws that really exist and are enforced generate problems and disincentives for IP thieves -- rather than the world that some of you seem to fancy

There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

And just because the notion exists doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's law also doesn't mean it's right. It just means someone thought it was a good idea at the time (and in this case, had something to gain from it a la 'dat mouse).

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:
As someone who writes computer software for a living, I am glad I live in the real world -- you know, the ones where actual laws that really exist and are enforced generate problems and disincentives for IP thieves -- rather than the world that some of you seem to fancy

There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

And just because the notion exists doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's law also doesn't mean it's right. It just means someone thought it was a good idea at the time (and in this case, had something to gain from it a la 'dat mouse).

But it is the law, and people who create content do so knowing that is the framework of protection. You might not think it's right; I think that the length is debatable, but I as a creator of content, I would prefer it to be as long as possible, to protect my personal and professional interest.

In the alternative, I would be spending extraordinary efforts to prevent reverse engineering, and probably make an entire business of such.

I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

 Rippy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Vyxen wrote:
So, J.R.R. Tolkein's heirs should not receive compensation for the smashing success of the Lord of the Rings films?.

Not really, no.

Copyright is supposed to protect the rights of the creator of the work. There is absolutely no logical reason for that to transfer to someone else on the creator's death. The only reason it does is because every time Mickey Mouse starts approaching the end of his copyright tenure, Disney campaigns to get the law changed.

So anyone should be able to make money off Tolkiens property which his kids inherited?

If they had no part in the creation (and as far as I know, unless the story is derived from Tolkien watching his kids play in the back year when they were young, they didn't. And even if it were, it would be a stretch to say that they deserve the rights to hold the IP. If I am wrong and they did help his write is, I'm sorry for the bad analogy, but my point still remains.), then why should they reap the rewards. Sir Peter Jackson should not be able to claim that the idea was his and he should give due credit to the creator, but I don't think that he should have to pay the heirs of the creator to use the ideas.

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:
As someone who writes computer software for a living, I am glad I live in the real world -- you know, the ones where actual laws that really exist and are enforced generate problems and disincentives for IP thieves -- rather than the world that some of you seem to fancy

There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

And just because the notion exists doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's law also doesn't mean it's right. It just means someone thought it was a good idea at the time (and in this case, had something to gain from it a la 'dat mouse).

But it is the law, and people who create content do so knowing that is the framework of protection. You might not think it's right; I think that the length is debatable, but I as a creator of content, I would prefer it to be as long as possible, to protect my personal and professional interest.

In the alternative, I would be spending extraordinary efforts to prevent reverse engineering, and probably make an entire business of such.

I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

Or you'd have people who write things I like continuing to write things I like because that's how they make a living?

As a percentage, the individuals who create a single entity which is so popular it is sufficient to support them for the rest of their life, let alone any person beyond that for any extended period, must be quite small?

Creatives will be compelled to create, if what they create is popular, it can earn them a decent income, but how many authors would write one book, do quite well and think, meh, good enough, if I can earn royalties for this for 25 years, I'll stop now. Shame it isn't for life+70, I'd like to have written more books?

 Talys wrote:


I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

And I think you'd be very incorrect given we've got the entirety of human history back up the fact we can be extremely creative, artistic, and innovative without arbitrary rules to "protect our ideas."

And the logic further instead that you do not create a rule and then find proof, but you must first prove why we need the rule. We have plenty of laws built upon false pretenses that have slowly evaporated as either conditions, expectations, or public knowledge has changed. So the burden of proof is on the lawmaker to show why having any form of intellectual protection is good and how the law can be readily enforced. Right now, it's only enforced through corporate legal teams with take down notices and scare tactics to small time infringers to sucker money out them without going to court.

Actually going to court is foolish and wasteful as the ability to prove willing infringement is incredibly difficult and why the "scare letters" are used for digital goods.

And this will be more pressingly relevant when you can download your minis, which is soon coming.

 TheKbob wrote:
There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

I think that guglielmo marconi may be the first 'IP thief' when he patented the wireless telegraph despite the internals being other peoples inventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_telegraphy

 SirDonlad wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

I think that guglielmo marconi may be the first 'IP thief' when he patented the wireless telegraph despite the internals being other peoples inventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_telegraphy

And the "prior art" debate is introduced! Nah, but that is a big thing in IP. Who did it first*? And when is first? First to market, first to think it up, first to write it down, first to mail the idea to themselves in a sealed envelope through the post?



Rules for rules sake!

*correct answer:

Spoiler:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

And I think you'd be very incorrect given we've got the entirety of human history back up the fact we can be extremely creative, artistic, and innovative without arbitrary rules to "protect our ideas."

And the logic further instead that you do not create a rule and then find proof, but you must first prove why we need the rule. We have plenty of laws built upon false pretenses that have slowly evaporated as either conditions, expectations, or public knowledge has changed. So the burden of proof is on the lawmaker to show why having any form of intellectual protection is good and how the law can be readily enforced. Right now, it's only enforced through corporate legal teams with take down notices and scare tactics to small time infringers to sucker money out them without going to court.

Actually going to court is foolish and wasteful as the ability to prove willing infringement is incredibly difficult and why the "scare letters" are used for digital goods.

And this will be more pressingly relevant when you can download your minis, which is soon coming.

I disagree. For virtually the entire history of humanity, artists have been horribly treated. They lived, died and worked at the whim of a patron. You couldn't paint or create music unless there was a rich person who would protect you, clothe you, and feed you.

It's not for lawmakers to prove that intellectual property protection is good. I mean, that is factually incorrect. Since these laws are already written, it's for plaintiffs to argue in front of judges that the intellectual property protection is BAD, or, in the alternative, for citizens to elect new government of like mind. I think the latter is pretty implausible, and the former borders upon the impossible. More likely, if future generations believe as you do, legislation will slowly be implemented that would erode intellectual property rights, while protecting grandfathered works. A change to something like 25 years from publication would be a century or more in the making, even if there were the political will. And that's not exactly an election-winning platform.

I also disagree that protecting IP rights in court is foolish, either to seek injunctive relief, or monetary damages. Not really people who illegally download, but certainly for any organization that profits from it. I think most IP owners would agree with me.

I don't think you will see in the forseeable future the technology where it's cheaper and fast enough to print your own miniatures. At least, not anything that would be comparable to a cast miniature. We have a 3D printer at work, and while it's ok to create some housing prototypes, the quality is not even remotely close to a 40k miniature. And we have a $20,000 printer. Plus, the material isn't exactly cheap.

 TheKbob wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
There are no IP thieves, at least in the USA. IP infringers, sure.

I think that guglielmo marconi may be the first 'IP thief' when he patented the wireless telegraph despite the internals being other peoples inventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_telegraphy

And the "prior art" debate is introduced! Nah, but that is a big thing in IP. Who did it first*? And when is first? First to market, first to think it up, first to write it down, first to mail the idea to themselves in a sealed envelope through the post?



Rules for rules sake!

*correct answer:

Spoiler:

From what I understand, first is relative to first to take an explained idea/design to the patent office and pay money to patent it. At least as far as entrepreneurial ideas goes.

 Talys wrote:

I disagree. For virtually the entire history of humanity, artists have been horribly treated. They lived, died and worked at the whim of a patron. You couldn't paint or create music unless there was a rich person who would protect you, clothe you, and feed you.

So, just like everyone else to some degree or another?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Or you'd have people who write things I like continuing to write things I like because that's how they make a living?

As a percentage, the individuals who create a single entity which is so popular it is sufficient to support them for the rest of their life, let alone any person beyond that for any extended period, must be quite small?

Creatives will be compelled to create, if what they create is popular, it can earn them a decent income, but how many authors would write one book, do quite well and think, meh, good enough, if I can earn royalties for this for 25 years, I'll stop now. Shame it isn't for life+70, I'd like to have written more books?

Or, like the artists of 18th century, live their entire lives under extreme financial anxiety or poverty. And those were the creative giants, the geniuses of their times (and possibly of all history). Average artists should be able to earn a decent income, and if they create something popular, they shouldn't earn a decent income at all -- they should make the same amount of money as a movie star or NFL quarterback. Damn straight George Martin should be set for life for writing Game of Thrones.

If an inventor creates a piece of software that's used by 90%+ of PCs, they should become the richest person in the world.

If you don't like it, then enter politics and try to change the world. I'd say good luck with that, but it would be pretty sarcastic

 Talys wrote:


I disagree. For virtually the entire history of humanity, artists have been horribly treated. They lived, died and worked at the whim of a patron. You couldn't paint or create music unless there was a rich person who would protect you, clothe you, and feed you.

It's not for lawmakers to prove that intellectual property protection is good. I mean, that is factually incorrect. Since these laws are already written, it's for plaintiffs to argue in front of judges that the intellectual property protection is BAD, or, in the alternative, for citizens to elect new government of like mind. I think the latter is pretty implausible, and the former borders upon the impossible. More likely, if future generations believe as you do, legislation will slowly be implemented that would erode intellectual property rights, while protecting grandfathered works. A change to something like 25 years from publication would be a century or more in the making, even if there were the political will. And that's not exactly an election-winning platform.

I also disagree that protecting IP rights in court is foolish, either to seek injunctive relief, or monetary damages. Not really people who illegally download, but certainly for any organization that profits from it. I think most IP owners would agree with me.

I don't think you will see in the forseeable future the technology where it's cheaper and fast enough to print your own miniatures. At least, not anything that would be comparable to a cast miniature. We have a 3D printer at work, and while it's ok to create some housing prototypes, the quality is not even remotely close to a 40k miniature. And we have a $20,000 printer. Plus, the material isn't exactly cheap.

Or, perhaps history has taught us that artistic merits are of value, but of not open enough worth to allow or sustain everyone to pursue them. That we needed to inflate arbitrary standards, now very much corrupt, to try to achieve the goals of making it "fair." I hate to tell you, but artists are still abused under patronage, it's called record labels, movie/television studios, and CG sweatshops. Times have not changed even with IP law. It's perhaps more worth note that IP law has only really benefited singular stand outs, who'd have likely to succeeded otherwise, not the other way around.

Artists actively bucking those trends and becoming independent and selling themselves as the brand, not their product, are rampaging ahead with success. Patreon itself is a great example and I already gave a link of someone doing that. It's as if entirely bypassing the concept of idea ownership and instead selling a service is how art functions. Weird, right?

Almost all movement on IP laws these days have been harsher and harsher crack downs which has exacerbated the inability to stem the tide of infrignement. The only benefactors are the major corporations suing each other or trying to actually halt creativity by smaller entities. Oh, look, Games Workshop is not only an IP infringer with how heavy handed they're lifting of old properties was initially, but also now one of those companies trying to actively abuse the laws to stifle competition.

Working as intended, right?

And as to technology, you sound like a horse salesmen as Ford announces his new capabilities to produce automobiles.

Maybe art is not yet sustainable. Maybe the economy itself needs to move to a post scarcity system (think Star Trek universe) to fully make it so...

Except George Martin didn't write "A Song Of Ice And Fire" and stop, did he?

Much like anyone else doing a job, in order to keep his income going, he kept writing.

Comparing any modern artist to 18th Century peers is utterly fallacious, just as it would be to compare some serf from medieval times to a modern farmer, there is really no comparison to be drawn.

Equally, expecting to earn from work done decades before has no other corollary in working life, I don't get paid commission from sales I made for a former employer 5 years ago, even if my employer is still profiting from that customer.

 Talys wrote:

If an inventor creates a piece of software that's used by 90%+ of PCs, they should become the richest person in the world.

Something tells me you haven't seen "Pirates of the Silicon Valley".

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except George Martin didn't write "A Song Of Ice And Fire" and stop, did he?

Much like anyone else doing a job, in order to keep his income going, he kept writing.

Comparing any modern artist to 18th Century peers is utterly fallacious, just as it would be to compare some serf from medieval times to a modern farmer, there is really no comparison to be drawn.

Equally, expecting to earn from work done decades before has no other corollary in working life, I don't get paid commission from sales I made for a former employer 5 years ago, even if my employer is still profiting from that customer.

Actually, comparing a serf of medieval times to a modern day laborer is perfectly fair. If not for the rise of unions and worker rights bills and many reformations that empowered workers relative to land/factory owners, life would be a lot harder for a non-existent middle class. Likewise, copyright laws and treaties gave rise to a tidal wave of creative types that did not exist centuries ago in the same proportions of society as today (of course, there are other factors like scarcity of food and geopolitical stability).

Regarding work done decades ago: inventors are rewarded with ownership of their ideas for their lifetimes and about 3 generations afterwards. We live in a society which strongly incentivizes invention and creativity.

I find the debate slightly hilarious, because you're arguing for something that does not exist (effectively, anywhere in this world that you would dare to live), and that nobody on this forum realistically expects to happen in their lifetime.

Regarding George Martin -- nobody knew who he was before A Game of Thrones; and very few people have read anything written by him other than Song of Fire and Ice and its derivative works. Actually, mostly, people have just watched the HBO series, LOL.

 Talys wrote:


Regarding work done decades ago: inventors are rewarded with ownership of their ideas for their lifetimes and about 3 generations afterwards. We live in a society which strongly incentivizes invention and creativity.

One thing Steve Jobs and Bill Gates agree on is that Pirates of Silicon Valley is a nice piece of... fiction

Yea, "fiction". Sure.

And society does not provide incentive towards invention. It's actually prioritizes being first. I'd have to pull up the research, but there was a period of time prior to telecommunications when people would watch patent offices and then race across the ocean, in either direction, to the "first to file" on a new technology in a new country so that they would have rights.

History has shown time and time again that the inventor isn't the winner. The entrepreneur usually is, who is supported entirely by...

... you guessed it, arbitrary laws!

 TheKbob wrote:


History has shown time and time again that the inventor isn't the winner. The entrepreneur usually is, who is supported entirely by...

... you guessed it, arbitrary laws!

Yep! Written by people you (or your parents and their parents) put into office. Unless you didn't vote. In which case... well... you can't complain

By the way, the movie is supposed to be reasonably accurate "where it counts" -- but from what I recall, artistic license was exercised to mesh urban legends with reality.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except George Martin didn't write "A Song Of Ice And Fire" and stop, did he?

Much like anyone else doing a job, in order to keep his income going, he kept writing.

Comparing any modern artist to 18th Century peers is utterly fallacious, just as it would be to compare some serf from medieval times to a modern farmer, there is really no comparison to be drawn.

Equally, expecting to earn from work done decades before has no other corollary in working life, I don't get paid commission from sales I made for a former employer 5 years ago, even if my employer is still profiting from that customer.

Actually, comparing a serf of medieval times to a modern day laborer is perfectly fair. If not for the rise of unions and worker rights bills and many reformations that empowered workers relative to land/factory owners, life would be a lot harder for a non-existent middle class. Likewise, copyright laws and treaties gave rise to a tidal wave of creative types that did not exist centuries ago in the same proportions of society as today (of course, there are other factors like scarcity of food and geopolitical stability).

Regarding work done decades ago: inventors are rewarded with ownership of their ideas for their lifetimes and about 3 generations afterwards. We live in a society which strongly incentivizes invention and creativity.

I find the debate slightly hilarious, because you're arguing for something that does not exist (effectively, anywhere in this world that you would dare to live), and that nobody on this forum realistically expects to happen in their lifetime.

I'm not really arguing for anything, I'm just looking to highlight that creative industries have a degree of protection which doesn't really correlate with any other.

I will also counsel you against speaking in absolutes on the Internet, expect someone to come forward to explain that it is exactly what they expect to happen.

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I'm not sure how it's in the public interest for copyright terms to be 10 or 25 years. You'd just have fewer people writing things that you might like.

And I think you'd be very incorrect given we've got the entirety of human history back up the fact we can be extremely creative, artistic, and innovative without arbitrary rules to "protect our ideas."

And the logic further instead that you do not create a rule and then find proof, but you must first prove why we need the rule. We have plenty of laws built upon false pretenses that have slowly evaporated as either conditions, expectations, or public knowledge has changed. So the burden of proof is on the lawmaker to show why having any form of intellectual protection is good and how the law can be readily enforced. Right now, it's only enforced through corporate legal teams with take down notices and scare tactics to small time infringers to sucker money out them without going to court.

Actually going to court is foolish and wasteful as the ability to prove willing infringement is incredibly difficult and why the "scare letters" are used for digital goods.

And this will be more pressingly relevant when you can download your minis, which is soon coming.

I disagree. For virtually the entire history of humanity, artists have been horribly treated. They lived, died and worked at the whim of a patron. You couldn't paint or create music unless there was a rich person who would protect you, clothe you, and feed you.

This goes for most professions. Scientists, Engineers, Artists, anyone not doing physical labor, largely up until the modern era either had to rely on a patron or were already independently wealthy.

Yes, there's a reason for IP protection. However, the idea that Copyright should get up to 70 years after the death of the author, or up to 120 years after date of creation in the case of a corporate creation, while a patent on a physical device only gets 17 (which, in the software arena, can often be the same thing as 120 years), is silly.

The original idea was so that creators could benefit from their work and spur them to create more, but being able to sit on something for what is effectively eternity often has the opposite effect.

I don't think you will see in the forseeable future the technology where it's cheaper and fast enough to print your own miniatures. At least, not anything that would be comparable to a cast miniature. We have a 3D printer at work, and while it's ok to create some housing prototypes, the quality is not even remotely close to a 40k miniature. And we have a $20,000 printer. Plus, the material isn't exactly cheap.

11 years ago I worked with a 3D printer that cost several million dollars and could barely match what a $5,000 machine does today. While I would agree that we aren't about to see mass quality 3D printed mini's come out by the end of the year, over the next 5 or 10 years that's going to become a very distinct possibility.

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


History has shown time and time again that the inventor isn't the winner. The entrepreneur usually is, who is supported entirely by...

... you guessed it, arbitrary laws!

Yep! Written by people you (or your parents and their parents) put into office. Unless you didn't vote. In which case... well... you can't complain

I was not alive in the 1970s, and I presume you can conclude that back to even earlier. I was not within the legal voting age during the DMCA fiasco. So I cannot say I contributed to the mess we're in. I have actively supported those who choose not to enforce arbitrary rules to placate masses, which really just leverage more power against us.

So I have full right to complain and work towards the solution to the best of my ability.

I'd wonder if GRRM would be taking so long to finish his beloved series if he knew the copyright was about ready to expire, allowing another author to swoop in?

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


History has shown time and time again that the inventor isn't the winner. The entrepreneur usually is, who is supported entirely by...

... you guessed it, arbitrary laws!

Yep! Written by people you (or your parents and their parents) put into office. Unless you didn't vote. In which case... well... you can't complain

I was not alive in the 1970s, and I presume you can conclude that back to even earlier. I was not within the legal voting age during the DMCA fiasco. So I cannot say I contributed to the mess we're in. I have actively supported those who choose not to enforce arbitrary rules to placate masses, which really just leverage more power against us.

So I have full right to complain and work towards the solution to the best of my ability.

Then, be an activist on the matter, and good on you. I applaud anyone who gets involved in improving the system, even if I disagree with their position.

Unless they refuse to accept scientific fact, in which I will applaud their sense of civic duty, but still call them a total idiot. No, humans didn't play with dinosaurs, and yes, global temperatures are rising despite snowmageddon.

And yes, 38,000 years from now (approximately) humans will play with dinosaurs again. It will happen on 745.M41 on the Imperial world of Tyran Primus. FACT.

Oh yes, and Hive Fleet Behemoth will be defeated at Maccragge, because, well, when was the last time a good Ultramarine player lost against Tyranids?

Vyxen wrote:
Some people who stand to inherit fortunes may disagree with you. Some people with fortunes to pass to their children and grandchildren may also disagree with your characterization of their successors being just Mr. Layzyass Heir being a parasite.

Like me, for example! I'm a photographer and I love it as a profession and passion. I'm pretty good, too. But I could have never done it without the support of my family, because it's not a profession that pays very well as you start out, and it's not really easy to start a family being a photographer. But because I come from a well-to-do family, I could do something that I love, instead of grinding out a job that I don't. I have two kids, and I want to give them the best start to life, hope they achieve more than me (but will love them more than anything no matter what), and I will be happy to pass on all that I possess to them.

Glad you're bitter that some people have it better than you, though.

I'm not against inheritance, or monetary support from one's family.

I'm against inheriting copyright on artistic creations that were crafted by a relative of yours probably before you were even born.

Regarding the "no copyright after author dies", I don't entirely agree with it, because premature deaths are an issue and it wouldn't be fair if some author would die two or three years after publishing their first best-seller and their wife/husband/partner/kids would be left without a penny. That's why I would be positive about some arbitrary time limit, like 25 or 30 years.

But swimming in money just because your grandparent had a nice idea and plastered it on a well-selling book? Thanks but no.

Rich kids who have never done a thing in their lives save for inheriting this, this and that (your average conservative politician btw) will of course disagree.

 Korinov wrote:

I'm not against inheritance, or monetary support from one's family.

I'm against inheriting copyright on artistic creations that were crafted by a relative of yours probably before you were even born.

Regarding the "no copyright after author dies", I don't entirely agree with it, because premature deaths are an issue and it wouldn't be fair if some author would die two or three years after publishing their first best-seller and their wife/husband/partner/kids would be left without a penny. That's why I would be positive about some arbitrary time limit, like 25 or 30 years.

But swimming in money just because your grandparent had a nice idea and plastered it on a well-selling book? Thanks but no.

Rich kids who have never done a thing in their lives save for inheriting this, this and that (your average conservative politician btw) will of course disagree.

Your only real solution then, is to move to a warzone country like Yemen, where possession is 10/10ths of the law, or invent a time machine that takes you back before 1790, because copyright has never existed for less than 28 years, since the inception of the concept, and hasn't been less than 30 years since 1831.

The very first time US copyright exist, the term was 28 years -- in 1790. In 1831, it became 42 years. In 1909, it became 56 years. In 1976, it became life + 50 years, and in 1998 went to life +70 years.

The Copyright Term Extension Act passed in the US House with a vote of 297 to 112, meaning both Democrats and Republicans supported it and it's supported by every major music production, movie production, and artist guild in America.

I'm guessing you probably don't like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well, sailed through the House with a voice vote, and then passed the US Senate by unanimous consent.

So you might not like it, and of course you're entitled to that opinion. And if you want to fight for it, all the power to you. Just keep in mind that you live in a republic, not a democracy, and the leaders that have been elected for the last 225 years have moved the needle in the opposite direction as your preference.

If you really want change, you will need to run for office yourself (and win, and find three hundred or so like-minded folks), or out-lobby the movie, music, drug, and tech industries.

 Talys wrote:
So you might not like it, and of course you're entitled to that opinion. And if you want to fight for it, all the power to you. Just keep in mind that you live in a republic, not a democracy, and the leaders that have been elected for the last 225 years have moved the needle in the opposite direction as your preference.

If you really want change, you will need to run for office yourself (and win, and find three hundred or so like-minded folks), or out-lobby the movie, music, drug, and tech industries.

I don't even live in a republic. The world doesn't end in 'murica's borders.

 Korinov wrote:

 Talys wrote:
So you might not like it, and of course you're entitled to that opinion. And if you want to fight for it, all the power to you. Just keep in mind that you live in a republic, not a democracy, and the leaders that have been elected for the last 225 years have moved the needle in the opposite direction as your preference.

If you really want change, you will need to run for office yourself (and win, and find three hundred or so like-minded folks), or out-lobby the movie, music, drug, and tech industries.

I don't even live in a republic. The world doesn't end in 'murica's borders.

Oh, I saw the wrong tag when I replied, sorry It doesn't change my point, though. Copyright terms have never been as low as you would like them to be, certainly not in the memory of anyone who lives today.

Speaking of copyright and the ethics of corporations, what do you guys think about this little something I've just come across:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/videogame-publishers-no-preserving-abandoned-games-even-museums-and-archives

That sounds like they want to enforce planned obsolescence. When people buy a game they own it to play. They're not renting it so shouldn't be at the mercy of the publisher deciding one day they don't want you playing any more so turning off their servers.

I don't think anyone expects companies to support their old games forever as server space costs money. But I don't think the publisher should be allowed to choose when you can't use a product you paid for any more.

Likewise, copyright laws and treaties gave rise to a tidal wave of creative types that did not exist centuries ago in the same proportions of society as today

Seems like a waste of resources, why bother discoverying the "wheel" again, when you can take an already existing thing and copy it. Better yet by not having all that social security stuff you can produce adn sell the same stuff cheaper, effecticly flooding the markets and giving you more cash which you can invest in to copying more stuff, which gives even more money etc.

The idea of copyright as an insurance policy for spouses and offspring is stupid, again another luxury afforded arbitrarily to a singular profession.

What happens if a doctor, engineer, or scientist died early? Their employer will not continue paying out his or her salary. Instead, intelligent ones do what's smart: live below your means, save a significant portion of their income and maintain minimal to no consumer debt.

Saying copyright us a substitute for personal responsibility is weak at best.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
That sounds like they want to enforce planned obsolescence. When people buy a game they own it to play. They're not renting it so shouldn't be at the mercy of the publisher deciding one day they don't want you playing any more so turning off their servers.

I don't think anyone expects companies to support their old games forever as server space costs money. But I don't think the publisher should be allowed to choose when you can't use a product you paid for any more.

Technically, they don't own it to play. When they buy a game, they buy a license that gives them limited rights to play.

As time goes by, it becomes less relevant, since game vendors are all moving towards server-based systems and real-time streaming. At some point, you won't ever "get" anything, virtually eliminating piracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
The idea of copyright as an insurance policy for spouses and offspring is stupid, again another luxury afforded arbitrarily to a singular profession.

What happens if a doctor, engineer, or scientist died early? Their employer will not continue paying out his or her salary. Instead, intelligent ones do what's smart: live below your means, save a significant portion of their income and maintain minimal to no consumer debt.

Saying copyright us a substitute for personal responsibility is weak at best.

This is not true. If a doctor, engineer, or scientist is given stock options for their work, those have durable and investment value, which continue to pay dividends even after they are deceased. In fact, no top doctor, engineer, or scientist (that makes millions per year) will work for a company unless there are long-term benefits like that.

Why should being a successful CEO be more rewarding than being a successful scientist?

Also, for many people (like my parents and their grandparents), ensuring that your kids are more successful and being able to pass stuff on to them is actually a super high priority in life, higher than luxuries for themselves. My mom's parents had 6 kids, and they made sure to buy at least one house for each. Perhaps it's cultural. In any case, I have no idea why there is animosity towards parents who want to leave estates for their kids. There certainly is no way to prevent it, lol.

 Talys wrote:


This is not true. If a doctor, engineer, or scientist is given stock options for their work, those have durable and investment value, which continue to pay dividends even after they are deceased. In fact, no top doctor, engineer, or scientist (that makes millions per year) will work for a company unless there are long-term benefits like that.

Why should being a successful CEO be more rewarding than being a successful scientist?

Also, for many people (like my parents and their grandparents), ensuring that your kids are more successful and being able to pass stuff on to them is actually a super high priority in life, higher than luxuries for themselves. My mom's parents had 6 kids, and they made sure to buy at least one house for each. Perhaps it's cultural. In any case, I have no idea why there is animosity towards parents who want to leave estates for their kids. There certainly is no way to prevent it, lol.

Stock options are very, very different from copyright. One is far from arbitrary, the other is not. Same with any other form. Of retirement funds or insurance policies. These all require foresight and pay in these days. And I don't care what your profession is, the true means of self sustainability is having enough money to support oneself without requiring to work. This is typically achieved as I outlined previously.

Do not conflate the idea of inheritance with copyright. Inheritance is the passing on of accrued wealth, tangible. Copyright is arbitrary. It should not be passed on as you cannot pass on the intellect of a scientist or doctor. Ideas are not scarce or tangible.

And buying your children houses is actually negative in the long run. Again, I apologize for not having the exact book quote, but the best way to ensure your children's potential is to fuel ambition and provide the minimal amount of resources to make them hungry for success. The only true monetary investment that produces dividends is education.

If monetary or tangible acquisitions actually made people happier or better off, lottery winners would be proof of that. And yet the aren't.

Feel free to disagree with me, TheKbob, but I feel copyrights should be long and enduring, and that a good idea is worth a ton of money (really, it can be priceless).

If someone can make money off of my idea for 100 years, I or my successors should earn money from that, effectively, for as long as I can imagine, or for as many generations of successors as I could see in a lifetime (great or great great grandkids). Of course you can disagree, but fortunately for me, the governing bodies and nations of the world take my side.

I have a published piece of software that grants me a royalty as long as it's being used (or a derivative work), whether that is 1 year or 500. It makes the company tens of millions every year -- so, why shouldn't it enrich me? They could have paid me in stock options too, but I chose durable royalties instead.

Also, I can only go from my personal experiences. My parents were pretty generous, and I think I turned into a reasonably productive member of society.

 Talys wrote:
Feel free to disagree with me, TheKbob, but I feel copyrights should be long and enduring, and that a good idea is worth a ton of money (really, it can be priceless).

If someone can make money off of my idea for 100 years, I or my successors should earn money from that, effectively, for as long as I can imagine, or for as many generations of successors as I could see in a lifetime (great or great great grandkids). Of course you can disagree, but fortunately for me, the governing bodies and nations of the world take my side.

I have a published piece of software that grants me a royalty as long as it's being used (or a derivative work), whether that is 1 year or 500. It makes the company tens of millions every year -- so, why shouldn't it enrich me? They could have paid me in stock options too, but I chose durable royalties instead.

Also, I can only go from my personal experiences. My parents were pretty generous, and I think I turned into a reasonably productive member of society.

Luckily we also know that lobbyists are behind much of the copyright and that the market is actively disagreeing with the laws. And its proving that enforcement is impractical. It's also a civil matter, not criminal, further diminishing it's ability.

Also, software is in contention as it's also seen as mathematics, which equations cannot be protected. And so quickly becomes iterated and invalid that it's becoming impractical to enforce.

Many other laws were supported globally, but that doesn't make them right. That's the appeal to authority fallacy. And your anecdote is not backed up by research.

See, this is why we need to teach children critical thinking over rote memorization. We'd have more folks actively questioning our world and laws versus falling to easy fallacies of logic and considering that a legitimate reason.

 TheKbob wrote:

Luckily we also know that lobbyists are behind much of the copyright and that the market is actively disagreeing with the laws. And its proving that enforcement is impractical. It's also a civil matter, not criminal, further diminishing it's ability.

Also, software is in contention as it's also seen as mathematics, which equations cannot be protected. And so quickly becomes iterated and invalid that it's becoming impractical to enforce.

Many other laws were supported globally, but that doesn't make them right. That's the appeal to authority fallacy. And your anecdote is not backed up by research.

See, this is why we need to teach children critical thinking over rote memorization. We'd have more folks actively questioning our world and laws versus falling to easy fallacies of logic and considering that a legitimate reason.

Let's meet back here in 20 years and see which way the needle has moved ^.^

Just because you believe the world should be one way doesn't mean that you are in the majority, and even thus, we live in a world where the majority elects lawmakers; we don't live by plebicite. Feel free to hate lobbyists, but they aren't going anywhere and if you want to effect change, be prepared to pay them.

Anyways this is so far off topic that it's silly. Back to the original question, websites selling recast products are breaking the law in their country -- at least, if it's a country that you can buy product from.

 Talys wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
That sounds like they want to enforce planned obsolescence. When people buy a game they own it to play. They're not renting it so shouldn't be at the mercy of the publisher deciding one day they don't want you playing any more so turning off their servers.

I don't think anyone expects companies to support their old games forever as server space costs money. But I don't think the publisher should be allowed to choose when you can't use a product you paid for any more.

Technically, they don't own it to play. When they buy a game, they buy a license that gives them limited rights to play.

As time goes by, it becomes less relevant, since game vendors are all moving towards server-based systems and real-time streaming. At some point, you won't ever "get" anything, virtually eliminating piracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
The idea of copyright as an insurance policy for spouses and offspring is stupid, again another luxury afforded arbitrarily to a singular profession.

What happens if a doctor, engineer, or scientist died early? Their employer will not continue paying out his or her salary. Instead, intelligent ones do what's smart: live below your means, save a significant portion of their income and maintain minimal to no consumer debt.

Saying copyright us a substitute for personal responsibility is weak at best.

This is not true. If a doctor, engineer, or scientist is given stock options for their work, those have durable and investment value, which continue to pay dividends even after they are deceased. In fact, no top doctor, engineer, or scientist (that makes millions per year) will work for a company unless there are long-term benefits like that.

I honestly don't know many scientists or engineers that make millions per year unless they are associated with television somehow. Many of the top scientists in the world make very little, relatively speaking. Scientists are rarely offered long term positions at most companies, unless they go into the private industry, or the military. Most scientists seek tenure so they can research at their leisure, secure in their paychecks.
Doctors are different of course. Many who open up private practices make quite a bit of money, though even they struggle to enter the millions per year category.

To earn millions per year, you usually need ownership of something. Either yourself as a brand, housing, stock, something that makes you money without active hours.

 Talys wrote:

Why should being a successful CEO be more rewarding than being a successful scientist?

It shouldn't, but it is. When I was just entering the private sector, I worked for a CEO who made millions per year. This person had no education, but was born into a wealthy well connected family, and hired people to make all of his money for him. He would show up for work around noon, work 3 hours (while clearly intoxicated) and go home, all while making more then the entire work force combined. I know many CEO's who are like this. I know no scientists that are like this.

 Talys wrote:

Also, for many people (like my parents and their grandparents), ensuring that your kids are more successful and being able to pass stuff on to them is actually a super high priority in life, higher than luxuries for themselves. My mom's parents had 6 kids, and they made sure to buy at least one house for each. Perhaps it's cultural. In any case, I have no idea why there is animosity towards parents who want to leave estates for their kids. There certainly is no way to prevent it, lol.

Sure there is, increase the estate tax and make it widely applicable. There is no way currently implemented, because all the people who would be effected by such a decision are the ones making those decisions, but there are ways to do so.

That being said, I came from a wealthy family (extremely) but wasn't handed anything. I still had an advantage over my peers in knowing I could always move home and start over, and if I really got into trouble, my parents could bail me out (which did happen once with the law). I bought all my own cars and homes as well, as did my brother.

To be on topic, I'm fine with recasts. I'm fine with downloading music and movies too. While buying the former isn't illegal, you could argue it's immoral, but that is a shaky position. And, to be honest, not one I care about.
Recently a friend of mine has gotten quite skilled with a 3D printer. He is making GW minis as best he can for his friends for cost of materials alone. I plan on completing my collection and owning every army at that time

 Talys wrote:
.
Let's meet back here in 20 years and see which way the needle has moved ^.^

Just because you believe the world should be one way doesn't mean that you are in the majority, and even thus, we live in a world where the majority elects lawmakers; we don't live by plebicite. Feel free to hate lobbyists, but they aren't going anywhere and if you want to effect change, be prepared to pay them.

Anyways this is so far off topic that it's silly. Back to the original question, websites selling recast products are breaking the law in their country -- at least, if it's a country that you can buy product from.

It's not a belief. It's based on rational fact, not hopeful feeling. And its entirely on topic. Recasts legality is entirely based upon the arbitrary notion of copyright.


For more legitimate proof of my position, not just the "I'm trying to protect my livelihood through arbitrary barriers," please read this:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/TPP%20Econ%20Presentation.pdf

@Akiasura - estate tax is a burden only on the middle class in any jurisdiction that has it.

Anyone with a LOT of money can wrap their cash and real estate in a trust or corporate vehicle, or simply buy a citizenship (effectively) in a tax treaty country with no inheritance tax, like Canada.

Remember, if you bequeath shares to someone thy only pay capital gains on the profit (sale minus purchase price or cost base) after the shares sell. It doesn't work to tax unsold shares because of many obvious reasons.

Who it really hurts are the 3 siblings who inherited $50,000 and a house, not the 3 siblings that inherit $500 million and a hotel chain.

Regarding scientists and such: If you're brilliant, someone will snap you up and pay you generously. If you're also shrewd, you'll negotiate some equity or enduring incone stream from the inventions that the company really wants -- or, sell your invention / company to a big company for a lot of money. More or less, how I made a couple of bucks. I tell you, companies will pay vast amounts of money for a good idea, and obscene amounts of money if that good idea has materialized in any meaningful way, which is the way it should be.

Incidentally, as a one-time C-level executive, my attitude was that if someone is making you tons of money, compensate them really well, because that is how you get more really good people. It's not what you pay them, it's the difference between that and what they do for the company.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:


It's not a belief. It's based on rational fact, not hopeful feeling. And its entirely on topic. Recasts legality is entirely based upon the arbitrary notion of copyright.


For more legitimate proof of my position, not just the "I'm trying to protect my livelihood through arbitrary barriers," please read this:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/TPP%20Econ%20Presentation.pdf

Most laws are arbitrary. Why is murder 25 years, instead of being drawn and quartered? Why is a statute of limitations 2, 3, 5 or 30 years? Why don't thieves have their hands chopped off? Why is a woman caught driving in Saudi Arabia publicly flogged?

If you want to make your life cause the reshaping of IP laws, I applaud your effort to try, even if I (vehemently) disagree. It's not an election winner, and people on your side of the fence don't tend to drop big campaign bucks, which you can't win am election without, so I don't think there's much chance for movement in your desired direction. But you're entitled to your opinion,just as the world is what it is, and I'll just leave it at that.

 Talys wrote:
@Akiasura - estate tax is a burden only on the middle class in any jurisdiction that has it.

Anyone with a LOT of money can wrap their cash and real estate in a trust or corporate vehicle, or simply buy a citizenship (effectively) in a tax treaty country with no inheritance tax, like Canada.

Remember, if you bequeath shares to someone thy only pay capital gains on the profit (sale minus purchase price or cost base) after the shares sell. It doesn't work to tax unsold shares because of many obvious reasons.

Who it really hurts are the 3 siblings who inherited $50,000 and a house, not the 3 siblings that inherit $500 million and a hotel chain.

Considering the estate tax only kicks in after 1.5 million (and that is the smallest amount, it changes depending on several factors) I strongly doubt that this is the case, at least in the US. Unless that lady left 50k each to her kids...and a 1.495 million dollar home too.

 Talys wrote:

Regarding scientists and such: If you're brilliant, someone will snap you up and pay you generously. If you're also shrewd, you'll negotiate some equity or enduring incone stream from the inventions that the company really wants -- or, sell your invention / company to a big company for a lot of money. More or less, how I made a couple of bucks. I tell you, companies will pay vast amounts of money for a good idea, and obscene amounts of money if that good idea has materialized in any meaningful way, which is the way it should be.

Who is this someone? Cornell, Harvard, Max Planck, Scripps...none of these companies/colleges pay millions of dollars per year. A football player or singer makes more than any researcher, and CEOs make many times more what they make.

If you work at those companies while your research is ongoing, and I challenge you to do synthetic blood or bone grafts on your own dime, that research is owned by the company/college that provided the money. Not you.
Science is not like programming. It requires vast amounts of money, licenses, equipment, and usually a competent staff. Candy crush, one of the most profitable bits of software created, could be done for relatively no cost when compared to IDO research.
You can tell me all you want, but my work experience has told me that what you are saying is not usually the case. At least, not for scientists.

@Aki - yes, you're right, for most scientists. But most football players don't make it big either. I guess I'm just saying that star innovators have and should have opportunities no less than star athletes, and for that to happen, IP laws are necessary.

By the way, I was talking in generalities about estate tax, not the USA specifically. All I'm saying is that the really rich have access to means of legally avoiding paying estate taxes, and generally pay a very low marginal tax rate anyhow (though they contribute a proportionately really high amount of tax revenue for the country).

Strawman fallacy followed by "well, that's just your opinion, man". I just gave you literal facts on how oppressive copyright laws hinder innovation and economic growth. How they see neither a necessary or sufficient requirement to enable creative works. And they are actively becoming draconian in nature.

This is why we have such bad laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 Talys wrote:
@Aki - yes, you're right, for most scientists. But most football players don't make it big either. I guess I'm just saying that star innovators have and should have opportunities no less than star athletes, and for that to happen, IP laws are necessary.

It is not most, it is all scientists. The people who are pushing your medicine and tech to the next levels and bringing you truly new innovations do not get paid for it, because companies/colleges do not allow them to own their own research. There is no bargaining, because you have no leverage.
I have a grant right now that brings in 22 million a year. My college gets 40% of that (this is actually quite low). The rest goes to the research and publishing various articles. If I fail to spend any of it, the college takes it. I don't get to keep it.

1.2% of all college football players make it to professional. I'd be curious to see how many science majors become scientists, considering I have nearly 2000 students every year and we have less then 30 doctoral students on campus....I'm sure the number isn't much better. Being a scientist isn't what I would call easy.
If you become a scientist, you have years of chasing grants and not finding steady employment anywhere until you have a vast amount of research behind you, no matter your connections (so at least its fair...I guess). After that, you still don't make a lot considering the work invested.
If you become a football player, you get a signing bonus that staggers the mind and a yearly check that seems high for someone playing a game. Maybe that's me.

 Talys wrote:

By the way, I was talking in generalities about estate tax, not the USA specifically. All I'm saying is that the really rich have access to means of legally avoiding paying estate taxes, and generally pay a very low marginal tax rate anyhow (though they contribute a proportionately really high amount of tax revenue for the country).

Considering us and the aussies are the only people with estate taxes...
Unless you mean an inheritance tax? That's quite different, and can be gotten around by anyone unless they die suddenly (it targets trusts too).

I can't comment on your later statement unless I know specifically what country you are talking about.


For the record, I fundamentally have an issue with anyone getting a leg up on life over someone else because they were born to the right family. It isn't something you earned, and I deal with their kids who want to be doctors constantly. I just had a student bring his parents in because he is failing my class, and they threatened to sue over it. The students with lower incomes tend to do a bit better, but it's the middle class kids who really shine.


Back to the original topic...
Still fine with recasts!

@aki - yes, sorry, inheritance taxes.

I don't have a problem with people who feel offspring shouldn't get a leg up on life, as long as they don't feel a need to legislate it. This is a personal choice -- who, where, and when I want to give my money to should be entirely my business.

About them recasts -- I stated my opinion like 10 pages ago that I could care less if someone uses recasts in games with me, and I don't care of someone buys recasts pr downloads music.

But both are illegal (the original topic) and certainly don't benefit the original artist in any way, so in that sense are immoral. I have also said that I, personally, am NOT a particularly moral person, but I wont break any laws. In D&D parlance, Lawful Neutral, rather tha. Chaotic Good . Maybe a little bit Good, but don't tell too many people.

I make no judgment on other peoples sense of right or wrong but will call it out if someone is trying to justify or rationalize an unlawful activity. Even if a recaster site is beneficial to you and even if you believe it should be allowed, the recaster is breaking the law. Just have a pair and own it, rather tha rationalize it.

 Talys wrote:
@aki - yes, sorry, inheritance taxes.

I don't have a problem with people who feel offspring shouldn't get a leg up on life, as long as they don't feel a need to legislate it. This is a personal choice -- who, where, and when I want to give my money to should be entirely my business.

I can't legislate, I don't have the family background to get something like that done. If I could, I would. I realize that this will never happen, ever.
Who you give your money too is entirely everyone's business. What if you give to terrorist organizations?

 Talys wrote:

About them recasts -- I stated my opinion like 10 pages ago that I could care less if someone uses recasts in games with me, and I don't care of someone buys recasts pr downloads music.

But both are illegal (the original topic) and certainly don't benefit the original artist in any way, so in that sense are immoral. I have also said that I, personally, am NOT a particularly moral person, but I wont break any laws. In D&D parlance, Lawful Neutral, rather tha. Chaotic Good . Maybe a little bit Good, but don't tell too many people.

Recasts are illegal to create, not to buy. Even though they are technically illegal to create, I'd bet you have a hard time showing damages (liability would be easy though). It's why there is a secondary market in the US that is going strong. In Europe, the secondary market is legal in most countries for most things, unless IP is involved.
Even your medicine comes from a secondary market.

 Talys wrote:

I make no judgment on other peoples sense of right or wrong but will call it out if someone is trying to justify or rationalize an unlawful activity. Even if a recaster site is beneficial to you and even if you believe it should be allowed, the recaster is breaking the law. Just have a pair and own it, rather tha rationalize it.

Helping slaves escape used to be an unlawful activity.
I rationalize that I think this law is wrong, and was put into place to help big land owners keep others, who can't afford slaves, out of a profitable business. Also, human rights violations are a thing too.
Please call me out on justifying it.

Funding terrorism is a crime. That's a silly comparison to giving your son startup capital for his company, whether that's a robotics pioneer or hobby shop.

The problem with doing it all yourself is that it takes quite a while to build up capital to do a lot of worthwhile endeavors. Some empires are hard to build in one generation.

Likewise, slavery and human rights violations are a terrible comparison to recasting and copyright. Aside from comparing toy soldiers and luxury entertainment to crimes against humanity, 100% of nations of the modern civilized world has agreed to the current copyright laws.

 Talys wrote:
Funding terrorism is a crime. That's a silly comparison to giving your son startup capital for his company, whether that's a robotics pioneer or hobby shop.

The problem with doing it all yourself is that it takes quite a while to build up capital to do a lot of worthwhile endeavors. Some empires are hard to build in one generation.

Likewise, slavery and human rights violations are a terrible comparison to recasting and copyright. Aside from comparing toy soldiers and luxury entertainment to crimes against humanity, 100% of nations of the modern civilized world has agreed to the current copyright laws.

You just said that it's only your business where your money goes to. I came up with an example that this is not the cause.
So it's okay where you spend your money as long its legal? That's fine, but say what you mean.

As to your second line, right, this is true. Children of rich parents have a huge advantage in this regard that people from lower incomes can not match. You can argue if this is right or not, I believe everyone should be treated as equal, so I am not a fan of this.

As to your third line, why is it a terrible comparison?
You claimed you wouldn't break any laws, but when a situation such as human rights violations comes into play (and such violations are the law), you are willing to break them? It isn't 100% of nations (though it might as well be) and nations have a variety of levels when it comes to enforcement. Believe it or not, nations will sign things because America tells them to.
See Palestine for why this is a thing.

If you were Lawful neutral in D&D, and this situation came into play, your character would return the slaves. If he didn't he'd fall to true neutral, perhaps neutral good.
For the record, I play Lawful Evil characters. Being good is easy.

My point is this;
Your morals aren't any better then any others. You have the law on your side, because you currently benefit from it and have an active interest in keeping it in place, any other reasons be damned. Everyone has their own lines in the sand that they are and aren't willing to cross over a variety of topics.
I'm fine with artists and athletes not being top earners in a society. They don't contribute as much as others, IMO

@Aki --

You can assume that I don't break the law, because I've said that... over.. and over.. and over.

The world isn't fair. Some people are born rich, other talented, some beautiful, and some talents and gifts beyond measure; others aren't. Having money is just one factor; it doesn't help if you happen to have childhood leukemia, too. World we live in. The only world in which people all start out from the same point (financial or otherwise) is in fiction. It's just never existed in the real world, and I don't think most people can imagine such a change in societal norms.

I have a slight tendency towards good (practically, more than slight, but I don't want to admit it), though I self-identify with Lawful Neutral The reason: I am extremely rational, and practical to a fault. I am more rational and practical than I am good or evil, in my opinion. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. All that. But practically, I give away vast amounts of wealth to good causes (and none to bad ones!), I make many sacrifices that would characterize poorly with evil, and I try to do all the little things to leave this a planet a better place when I depart than when I arrived (despite believing that there is no afterlife, eternal soul, eternal reward for goodness, eternal punishment for evil, or anything like that). In AD&D, I play everything from LG to CE. My favorite is Chaotic Neutral. RAWR!

I never said that my morals were better than others -- never even once. I have repeatedly said that people should own up to what they do, that's all, rather than try to give some half-assed justification to breaking the law, like GW products being too expensive, or that they wouldn't buy the products anyhow because they don't have enough money to do so. That's not having the courage of your convictions at all.

Artists and athletes don't contribute scientifically to society, but they do give entertainment and happiness, and frankly, I would happily trade wealth for happiness any day. I guess that's why I buy overpriced GW product and paint miniatures and blow my time playing 40k like a kid

 Talys wrote:
@Aki --

You can assume that I don't break the law, because I've said that... over.. and over.. and over.

You've never turned a blind eye to tax evasion in exchange to a little refund on some models?

 Talys wrote:

The world isn't fair. Some people are born rich, other talented, some beautiful, and some talents and gifts beyond measure; others aren't. Having money is just one factor; it doesn't help if you happen to have childhood leukemia, too. World we live in. The only world in which people all start out from the same point (financial or otherwise) is in fiction. It's just never existed in the real world, and I don't think most people can imagine such a change in societal norms.

True, but just because something hasn't existed before doesn't make it something not worth striving for.

 Talys wrote:

I have a slight tendency towards good (practically, more than slight, but I don't want to admit it), though I self-identify with Lawful Neutral The reason: I am extremely rational, and practical to a fault. I am more rational and practical than I am good or evil, in my opinion. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. All that. But practically, I give away vast amounts of wealth to good causes (and none to bad ones!), I make many sacrifices that would characterize poorly with evil, and I try to do all the little things to leave this a planet a better place when I depart than when I arrived (despite believing that there is no afterlife, eternal soul, eternal reward for goodness, eternal punishment for evil, or anything like that). In AD&D, I play everything from LG to CE. My favorite is Chaotic Neutral. RAWR!

What is a bad cause? Many charities squander their wealth, especially some of the larger ones.

I have gone over to areas suffering from natural disasters to hand out medical supplies directly to the relief workers. I organized this within my company, and the costs saved is in the millions.
I provide educational material such as books to Title 1 schools for cost of publication (which is pennies, no matter what GW claims).
Does this make my work more important than yours? Or me a better person? I don't think so. I too don't believe in any after life.

I do not find you to be overly rational. Practical perhaps, but rational?

I don't think you understand what a Lawful Neutral person is supposed to believe as laid out (though this is subjective).

A lawful good person believes that the law is a force of good and can help people. A lawful good person would free those slaves legally, or attempt to change the government. He may try to get them more rights, but he would return them.
A lawful neutral person would return them. The law is the law after all.
A lawful evil person would attempt to somehow gain ownership of the slaves themselves.

 Talys wrote:

I never said that my morals were better than others -- never even once. I have repeatedly said that people should own up to what they do, that's all, rather than try to give some half-assed justification to breaking the law, like GW products being too expensive, or that they wouldn't buy the products anyhow because they don't have enough money to do so. That's not having the courage of your convictions at all.

This could be my fault. After reading 16 pages I may have paired your posts with...others. So, true enough.
People don't need to justify breaking the law unless they are caught. The law is a set of rules enforced on you by threat of force. And, to be fair, they aren't breaking the law in America by buying them, only by selling.
Sometimes having the courage of your convictions means breaking the law. I would argue that, historically, it is easier to find examples of this being the case rather then the opposite, though this could be my national bias showing.

 Talys wrote:

Artists and athletes don't contribute scientifically to society, but they do give entertainment and happiness, and frankly, I would happily trade wealth for happiness any day. I guess that's why I buy overpriced GW product and paint miniatures and blow my time playing 40k like a kid

Wealth and happiness aren't mutually exclusive terms. However, it is hard to be unhappy while on a jetski on a private beach surrounded by beautiful ladies. It is easy to be unhappy when your decision this month is to attend your father's funeral or pay the rent.
I would not trade scientific progress for a pretty painting or graphic. I would not trade medicine for watching a football game. They could make a fraction of what they make now, and people would line up to do it for miles.

Well, I don't buy much anymore thanks to a friend getting that printer, but I have played nearly every edition of Warhammer 40k and Fantasy. I play all the specialist games except bloodbowl (I like the computer game for that).
I play WMH, WoD, DnD, and pretty much nearly any nerdy hobby you can think of. I love those games, they are excellent. If you haven't played a specialist game, give it a shot! I think you'd love it

That being said, if I don't like the way GW is going as a company, and I want to buy somewhere they won't get the money, I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't pirate most games because I like most gaming companies. I pirate EA games though, because they are a trash company.

Akiasura wrote:
You've never turned a blind eye to tax evasion in exchange to a little refund on some models?

I obey the letter of the law, not necessarily the spirit. Remitting sales tax is the burden of the seller. What they choose to do is not my problem.

Likewise, I've never suggested that buying a recast is illegal (except in some countries like France). But selling one is. So is not remitting sales tax.

I've stated the reasons that I don't buy recasts: it's not because it would be illegal to do so; it's because I want to reward GW/FW designers for making stuff I like, because I like my local store and want to support my local economy; and because frankly, the price difference is usually tiny.

But c'mon, supporting a terrorist organization is a whole other level of crazy. Yes, if anyone thinks that is ok, I will be fully judgy and say they are evil or nuts or both.

Akiasura wrote:

True, but just because something hasn't existed before doesn't make it something not worth striving for.

Indeed. But equality at birth is not worth striving for. Not only does a lot of the world disagree with you, but it's impracticable even for the financial aspect; and impossible from a genetic one, unless we're all clones. There are pursuits to strive for and causes to champion which might bear fruit.

Akiasura wrote:

What is a bad cause? Many charities squander their wealth, especially some of the larger ones.

Example of a bad cause: donating time or money to a group that refutes climate change or encourages fracking.
Example of good cause: spending a Sunday cooking for the homeless people. Buying some stuff like a hundred pound side of ham for the event.

While the world is full of grey, I think most reasonable people know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.

Akiasura wrote:

I have gone over to areas suffering from natural disasters to hand out medical supplies directly to the relief workers. I organized this within my company, and the costs saved is in the millions.
I provide educational material such as books to Title 1 schools for cost of publication (which is pennies, no matter what GW claims).
Does this make my work more important than yours? Or me a better person? I don't think so. I too don't believe in any after life.

That's great. I think you leave the world a better place, so that makes you a better person (than the version of you if you hadn't)

Akiasura wrote:

I do not find you to be overly rational. Practical perhaps, but rational?

I believe any rational person would want to incentivize invention and creativity to the maximum extent possible. I don't believe it serves the public interest to erode intellectual property rights. You believe the opposite. That's ok; as intelligent people, we can disagree.

Akiasura wrote:

I don't think you understand what a Lawful Neutral person is supposed to believe as laid out (though this is subjective).
A lawful good person believes that the law is a force of good and can help people. A lawful good person would free those slaves legally, or attempt to change the government. He may try to get them more rights, but he would return them.
A lawful neutral person would return them. The law is the law after all.
A lawful evil person would attempt to somehow gain ownership of the slaves themselves.

I have no idea what I would do in your hypothetical of modern-day me coming across someone's slaves in a world where slavery is the law, because I've never lived in a place where slavery is the law. Or met an abused slave. Or met a slave of any other type.

I imagine that if I lived two thousand years ago in Rome as a slave-owning citizen, I would not champion the cause of the slaves or start a slave revolution. After all, in Rome, slavery was neither evil nor unlawful; it was a way of life. But who knows? That's an unanswerable question.

Akiasura wrote:

Sometimes having the courage of your convictions means breaking the law. I would argue that, historically, it is easier to find examples of this being the case rather then the opposite, though this could be my national bias showing.

I agree! My point is, if you're going to do that, be proud of it and own it. Don't weasel your way out of it.

I applaud activists who try to champion environmental protection in contravention to the law. I wouldn't do it, but I am happy that they do. I'm not saying that other people shouldn't break the law, just that my tendency is to obey it.

Akiasura wrote:

Wealth and happiness aren't mutually exclusive terms. However, it is hard to be unhappy while on a jetski on a private beach surrounded by beautiful ladies. It is easy to be unhappy when your decision this month is to attend your father's funeral or pay the rent.
I would not trade scientific progress for a pretty painting or graphic. I would not trade medicine for watching a football game. They could make a fraction of what they make now, and people would line up to do it for miles.

I am a true nerd at heart. I would rather be with my miniatures and buddies playing 40k than being on a private beach surrounded by beautiful ladies. No joke, no exaggeration. Although I lucked out, and married a phenomenally beautiful woman who I love more than anything in the world, who makes me very happy, and puts up with my wonky nerdiness. Like, taking 2 giant suitcases full of painting materials and models, and 1,600 watts of lighting on a 1 week vacation to a cabin. Which is ok, because I put up with 2 giant suitcases filled with hair products, blowdryers, and makeup.

I would not trade scientific progress for art. But the nice thing about the world we live in is that I don't have to. We can have our art and eat it too! Artists and athletes get paid what the market will pay them, which I think is as it should be. I don't believe in artificially capping their income in hopes that people will donate money to the betterment of mankind (because they wouldn't... they'd just spend it somewhere else. We're really just like Dark Eldar, that way). Hmmm.. I wonder if there are hedonistic Dark Eldar nerds that take exquisite pleasure at... painting models.

Akiasura wrote:
Well, I don't buy much anymore thanks to a friend getting that printer, but I have played nearly every edition of Warhammer 40k and Fantasy. I play all the specialist games except bloodbowl (I like the computer game for that).
I play WMH, WoD, DnD, and pretty much nearly any nerdy hobby you can think of. I love those games, they are excellent. If you haven't played a specialist game, give it a shot! I think you'd love it

That being said, if I don't like the way GW is going as a company, and I want to buy somewhere they won't get the money, I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't pirate most games because I like most gaming companies. I pirate EA games though, because they are a trash company.

I love BloodBowl I cannot fathom why they don't sell it anymore. And Talisman! Favorite game of all time. I have a better solution for EA games... I play almost none

I am not going to quote everything, because quite frankly it is getting quite long. I will just address everything in points.

1) The price differences are tiny for you, because you get a nice discount already. Most people do not.

2) Many people are very unhappy with GW's prices. I buy my board games, food when I play, and WMH minis from my local store because I do support my local stores. Although they have a terrible business model.

3) Complete equality at birth isn't worth striving for since genetic manipulation would be a thing (although I may live to see it), but equality in education and chances are. At least so I believe. How the world feels doesn't matter to me.

4) People often don't know the difference between good and evil, right or wrong. If you give money to the Church of Scientology, for example, you may think you are sponsoring a new religion that is helping people. In other countries, you would be thrown in jail for supporting a terrorist organization. It's not always so black and white, and there are few issues you couldn't turn into a matter of gray.
Bad causes include things like the Red Cross, which donates very little of it's money to people who need it.

5) Fair enough. I don't think IP does what it is intended to do currently.

6) I should have been more clear, I meant that example in a D&D setting. But the point still stands, your morality is subject to the world around you and what the culture defines it. It's not a native thing to anyone.

7) I think everyone's tendency is to behave most laws. Speeding, coming to a full stop at a stop sign, and other things get ignored.

8) You are a lucky man.
I picked my example as an extreme obviously. But even your idea of a good time is more then poor people can afford. Obviously you are an adult (or a gifted child? No idea) so you've earned it for yourself.
And we are trading science for art in a way, at least in the US. We have to import most of our scientists and engineers nowadays, and the art/english programs are one of the reasons the student debt bubble is about to burst. There are a variety of reasons (fame of art/writers/actors, scientist being a gakky job to have) but it is a very real problem here. My grant involves changing this, and the government is happy to throw money at anyone who can fix it.

9) I'm happy they don't support the specialist games. It makes conversions easier to sell (Gorka Morka is conversion heaven) to players, and GW isn't fudging up the rules. It's also very cheap to get going if you allow non-gw minis