From the Huffington Post:

File-sharing website The Pirate Bay is for the first time hosting downloadable plans of 3D objects, which can be automatically printed at home with the right equipment.

But just hours after launching its new service the website was subject to claims of copyright infringement.

So-called 3D Printers have been available in some form for many years, and recently have begun to fall in cost - making them more easily and more readily available.

The way 3D printers work can vary widely. Some models use a soft plastic to build 3D objects - resin is laid down in thin layers by the printer, and gradually the strands are build up into a 3D form - while other more expensive printers use lasers to cut objects into shape and can make use of a mixture of materials.

In the past 3D printers have been heralded as providing a means for a new, legitimate and sustainable business model for small companies, and many communities of enthusiasts sharing designs and models have sprung up around the web on that basis.

The Pirate Bay is providing a new way for users to share 3D plans and objects, via Magnet Links and Torrents linked to straight from its website.

In a blog post The Pirate Bay said that physical objects ("physibles") represent "the next step in copying".

"We believe that things like three dimensional printers, scanners and such are just the first step," the website said. "We believe that in the nearby future you will print your spare sparts for your vehicles. You will download your sneakers within 20 years.

"The benefit to society is huge. No more shipping huge amount of products around the world. No more shipping the broken products back. No more child labour.

"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. We'll be able to actually copy that floppy, if we needed one."

The dangers for businesses are obvious, however. At a time when the fight over copyright infringement of digital music and movies is still in full swing, fighting the piracy of physical objects via the Internet has the potential to open into a legal minefield.

And as soon as the Pirate Bay 'physibles' section launched, at least one company appeared to have been made a target.



A model listed by an anonymous user as a 'Tabletop Wargaming Robot Model' - but identifiable to the Huffington Post UK as the likeness of a Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine Dreadnought, which is a trademarked design of the UK-based Games Workshop Group PLC - was freely available and had already been downloaded by at least 23 people as of press time.

The model, an official version of which costs £28 from Games Workshop, has been previously listed on a 3D printing community website, but the plans were reportedly pulled after a takedown notice was issued.

The Huffington Post UK was not independently able to test whether the available design was that of an actual Warhammer model, or a design 'inspired' by the official dreadnought.

In addition Games Workshop said they had no comment, and it was not possible to contact the creator of the design as the plans were listed anonymously.

But even though 3D printers remain a relatively niche interest for now, the prospect of widespread copyright infringement in even 5, 10 or 20 years must still be considered a worrying development. As the Pirate Bay themselves point out:

"We believe that things like three dimensional printers, scanners and such are just the first step. We believe that in the nearby future you will print your spare sparts for your vehicles. You will download your sneakers within 20 years."

Music and movies may just be the start. Lawyers, start your engines.

TL;DR: Someone uploaded a file for Dreads for 3D printers. That's right. Someone is pirating a dreadnaught.

Discuss!

Err Old news?

It's not that old. I don't think there has been a thread on this.

I'd like to see a picture of the model to assess how realistic the claim of 'copying' is.

What would I search if I was looking for this? Is it a document? A picture? A video? Or is it something new entirely?

That's funny though. You'd need a really good 3d printer to make a detailed dreadnought, I think.

The jury finds it guilty of being hideous.

Inspiration only...that is NOT a GW design XD

But I see why they are worried...many gamers don't play at GW...so things like this are perfect for those people...plus a 3D printer would save you loads compared to a 40k army...but it's not right.

Stuff like this NEEDS to be stopped.,..but unfortunately the only way is to ban the internet...and we all know that'll never happen.

Well it's a nice try but there's something of a christmas cracker quality to it.

Hell, I'd print that out. It's better than a carnifex as a proxy dreadnought.

This is only slightly off topic...but anyone seen the dreadnought, Ork and space marine on bike rip off's on that Facebook game called Social Wars??

Looks similar to the Dreadnought rip off in that XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Hell, I'd print that out. It's better than a carnifex as a proxy dreadnought.

But it's also illegal...and tbh...I wouldn't play you if you were using it :/

If it was an exact replica with swappable parts and it cost less than $74 (Dreadnought price) in materials then they'd have a market in Australia.

Otherwise, GW is set for a few years.

I can see one good thing on that model...a damned multi melta...you never get one unless you buy the AOBR dread XD

I blame GW.

Dreads used to be rare sacred things that where only fielded in dire circumstances.

Now armies regularly field a six-pack of them as if they are disposable fodder.

In a couple of editions we will havea marine chapter of all dreadnoughts that ride robotic wolves...

Just so long as they don't host a Rifleman version, I think we should be okay; non-Riflemen are generally sub-par choices anyway.

Avatar 720 wrote:Just so long as they don't host a Rifleman version, I think we should be okay; non-Riflemen are generally sub-par choices anyway.

We have a problem when people upload 3D scans of the models as this was clearly either a very low-res scan or done by hand (most likely the latter).

You can google some peoples results of high-res scans and they are truly amazing, they look the same except for the bumps.

Part of me thinks that you didn't get the joke...

There is no humor in DD!

NONE!

I can see it as a derivative work, but not a recast or anything.

3d printers are still quite pricey, so I don't really see this idea taking off that quickly. The day a 3d printer of any quality is $200 then I'll buy one.

Chowderhead wrote:There is no humor in DD!

NONE!

I thought you'd been around long enough to know this.

Humor exists only in the DCM forum, sadly.

Platuan4th wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:There is no humor in DD!

NONE!

I thought you'd been around long enough to know this.

Humor exists only in the DCM forum, sadly.

Not true.

OT is funny enough sometimes. We have a drag competition going on right now.

I have no idea how or why, but it's happening.

Shaozun wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Just so long as they don't host a Rifleman version, I think we should be okay; non-Riflemen are generally sub-par choices anyway.

We have a problem when people upload 3D scans of the models as this was clearly either a very low-res scan or done by hand (most likely the latter).

You can google some peoples results of high-res scans and they are truly amazing, they look the same except for the bumps.

All the dawn of war 3D models from the video game are basically "exported" as people can get the 3D renders from the game files.

Fan art is derivative works and companies tolerate it. As soon as people turn 3D fan art into products which directly compete with the companies primary business (like action figures or models) they will be forced to sue the Internet into oblivion.

Why copy when there are cool, free models out there to try printing? Like this guy:

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:16596

And they're only going to get better . No need to take someone else's IP, just print an awesome open source walker

There is something so utterly appalling to me about the very concept of an 'illegal shape'.

Not me daedalus. I look soo damn good my shape has gotta be illegal!



OwwwwW!

daedalus wrote:There is something so utterly appalling to me about the very concept of an 'illegal shape'.

Do you really find it that appalling that a copyright can be applied to a sculptural work, or a digital representation of that work?

Or is this an extension of a distate for copyright law in general?

There's a guy at my GW who has a 3D printer and he uses it to make bitz for his models and various Stompas. He's also made a Leman Russ using it, but it doesn't look very good at all. Plus it's one solid piece so you can't rotate the turrets.

biccat wrote:

daedalus wrote:There is something so utterly appalling to me about the very concept of an 'illegal shape'.

Do you really find it that appalling that a copyright can be applied to a sculptural work, or a digital representation of that work?

Or is this an extension of a distate for copyright law in general?

Frankly? Mostly the latter, though, given that the traditional method of famous artists developing their talents by copying the established works of the time, it's a little hypocritical.

At any rate, I'd feel better about it were copyright not getting extended every time Micky Mouse gets within 10 years of public domain.

If he had a better printer or took the effort to break it down into component pieces you would be able to. That's the trick is if you want the stuff to look great and function great you need to copy the individual bits as they come off the sprue then assemble them.

article wrote:downloaded by at least 23 people

So, not exactly an epidemic at the moment. Perhaps it will be in a few years, but not yet.

I'm sure GW legal and marketing are well aware of this issue and are looking into strategies to beat it.

"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. "

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

matphat wrote:"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. "

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

No, it's totally legit.

(I assume hungry people can survive on plastic shaped like real food.)

matphat wrote:"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. "

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

That got spoiled a while ago, bro.

Mmmmmmm! Plastic for dinner again!

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read... since i don't read aloud. lol

Why is GW worried about people printing horribly stupid looking things to represent their models? people have been doing this with cardboard for decades.

daedalus wrote:

biccat wrote:

daedalus wrote:There is something so utterly appalling to me about the very concept of an 'illegal shape'.

Do you really find it that appalling that a copyright can be applied to a sculptural work, or a digital representation of that work?

Or is this an extension of a distate for copyright law in general?

Frankly? Mostly the latter, though, given that the traditional method of famous artists developing their talents by copying the established works of the time, it's a little hypocritical.

That's allowed under copyright law, so no hypocrisy there.

daedalus wrote:At any rate, I'd feel better about it were copyright not getting extended every time Micky Mouse gets within 10 years of public domain.

I agree with you about Micky Mouse.

Really there are three main reasons for wanting to 3D print files at home.

1. If it's cheaper than buying the original parts. This is the obvious attraction of piracy.
2. To design and print your own unique stuff.
3. Just out of curiosity for the technology.

Going by my experience of 2D paper printing, it will probably end up more expensive and lower quality than professionally printed stuff. You should see the rate my daughter goes through ink cartridges.

matphat wrote:"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. "

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

3d printers have already been used to print organic material for organ transplants.

Maybe the "stupidest thing I have ever heard" problem is on your end.

They have been used to print replacement "bones".

It's a big step from that to a functioning organ, but it could happen, theoretically. By the time we get that far it will be "The Diamond Age".

You still need to transport base material, of course.

Kilkrazy wrote:They have been used to print replacement "bones".

It's a big step from that to a functioning organ, but it could happen, theoretically. By the time we get that far it will be "The Diamond Age".

You still need to transport base material, of course.

Actually, bioprinting has been used to make organic scaffolding to help hold transplanted organs, functional blood vessels, and skin cells. Additionally, the field of artificially grown meat is becoming quite developed. I can't say if 3d printing food will be practical or not, but it is definitely possible.

If someone scans a GW model (say a Dreadnaught) and prints another copy (an exact replica) then is that not infringing on copyright? Its exactly the same.

Now, what if the person uploads the schematic to a piracy website?

The copy would be an infringement, but the 3d plans may not be.

Take song lyrics: if you use someone else's lyrics in your song, that is infringement(after a certain point). But posting those lyrics in written form on the internet isn't. It is a digital format of the product that doesn't compete with or infringe upon the original.

So I'd say there is no recourse on people making and giving away scans of GW items, it's the printing itself that is illegal.

Just like I could likely get away with making molds of GW parts, and just sell the molds. As long as I don't cast parts in it, I haven't copied the original.

As some one who owns a 3d printer I've naturally been looking into 3d scans as a side project. The issue can be even more blurry then it is presented here. I think it's generally accepted that posting pictures of one of your models is perfectly alright. With current technology, which is admittedly in its infancy, one can take a gallery of around 50 pictures of 3d shape and generate a printable model from them. Should sites like this that let user post pictures of their models be blamed if people make copies of them? It's technology which is approaching 'user friendly' status over the next decade or so and needs to be planned for by companies like GW.

Aerethan wrote:The copy would be an infringement, but the 3d plans may not be.

Take song lyrics: if you use someone else's lyrics in your song, that is infringement(after a certain point). But posting those lyrics in written form on the internet isn't. It is a digital format of the product that doesn't compete with or infringe upon the original.

So I'd say there is no recourse on people making and giving away scans of GW items, it's the printing itself that is illegal.

Just like I could likely get away with making molds of GW parts, and just sell the molds. As long as I don't cast parts in it, I haven't copied the original.

None of this is true.

Please expand nk, citations and a example of your expertise would be great.

Making molds of copyrighted materials and selling the molds is still infringement and is not legal... But if you think it is, knock yourself out. When you are in court feel free to say "a guy on the Internet said I could."

Making a 3D model of a completed model is probably not the way to go. Making a 3D model of a SPRUE, however, is probably a lot easier, so long as the printer is good enough quality and it prints a material that can be worked with. I can also see benefits in being allowed to custom design the contents of the sprue that are being printed- extra meltaguns or power weapons, or perhaps things from other sprues. The market is already there, but it's restricted to buying custom bits with limited stock. Being able to print your own custom stock would be... words cannot describe.

I said I could likely get away with it, didn't say it was legal.

And the only time you end up in court that I've seen for this is if you say no to the C&D letter that GW may send your way if you get caught.

Copyright is becoming a bit of an anachronism with the advent of the information age. How do you stop file sharing when its backbone is made up of movable servers and dispersed uploaders and downloading peers? The answer is simply that as with the war on drugs stopping it completely is impossible and even just attempting to stem the tide is so costly and manpower intensive as to be a futile effort.

The fact of the matter is that GW can't win this fight by throwing money at it and trying to sue anonymous people on the internet. Suing or trying to take legal action against a website has already shown to be spotty if it's hosted outside of a country interested in stemming piracy. After all, TPB has survived many attempts to have it taken down and still hasn't given an inch.

People need to understand that a capitalist society based on owning ideas and expecting a constantly growing market isn't sustainable or even desirable. I'm not saying that I know the better answer, but increasing levels of automation are already costing jobs and with ever increasing technology we could see robots more and more outside of the factory doing simple tasks like paving roads and laying sidewalks. Once that sort of thing hits so many people will be out of work that we'll have to rethink things anyway.

----

On a side note bones and other tissue has been grown in the lab and there is a lot of research going into artificial meat as well as reprocessing waste into consumable food. Thus I don't see the idea of 'printing' food as that far fetched, especially if it takes less land use than ranching or other forms of commercial farming. I do however think we're a fairly long way off from seeing vat grown meat next to a cut of beef in the grocery store.

nkelsch wrote:Making molds of copyrighted materials and selling the molds is still infringement and is not legal... But if you think it is, knock yourself out. When you are in court feel free to say "a guy on the Internet said I could."

Citations, please. There's no point to making an argument if you're not going to back it up. Citations or you're wrong.

nkelsch wrote:Making molds of copyrighted materials and selling the molds is still infringement and is not legal... But if you think it is, knock yourself out. When you are in court feel free to say "a guy on the Internet said I could."

I'm no expert in law, so I don't even know how to look this up.

But since you're such an expert why don't you give me a citation.

Copyright Law of the United States
Chapter 13: Protection of Original Designs
§ 1301 · Designs protected2
(a) Designs Protected.—
(1) In general.—The designer or other owner of an original design of a
useful article which makes the article attractive or distinctive in appearance
to the purchasing or using public may secure the protection provided by this
chapter upon complying with and subject to this chapter.
(2) Vessel features.—The design of a vessel hull, deck, or combination
of a hull and deck, including a plug or mold, is subject to protection under
this chapter, notwithstanding section 1302(4).
(3) Exceptions.—Department of Defense rights in a registered design under
this chapter, including the right to build to such registered design, shall be
determined solely by operation of section 2320 of title 10 or by the instrument
under which the design was developed for the United States Government.
(b) Definitions.—For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms have
the following meanings:
(1) A design is “original” if it is the result of the designer’s creative endeavor
that provides a distinguishable variation over prior work pertaining to similar
articles which is more than merely trivial and has not been copied from
another source.
(2) A “useful article” is a vessel hull or deck, including a plug or mold, which
in normal use has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray
the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article which normally
is part of a useful article shall be deemed to be a useful article.
(3) A “vessel” is a craft—
(A) that is designed and capable of independently steering a course on
or through water through its own means of propulsion; and
(B) that is designed and capable of carrying and transporting one or
more passengers.
(4) A ‘hull’ is the exterior frame or body of a vessel, exclusive of the deck,
superstructure, masts, sails, yards, rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other
attachments.
(5) A “plug” means a device or model used to make a mold for the purpose
of exact duplication, regardless of whether the device or model has an intrinsic
utilitarian function that is not only to portray the appearance of the product
or to convey information.
(6) A “mold” means a matrix or form in which a substance for material
is used, regardless of whether the matrix or form has an intrinsic utilitarian
function that is not only to portray the appearance of the product or to convey
information.

Copyright Law of the United Kingdom

Artistic works

(1)In this Part “artistic work” means—

(a)a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,

(b)a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or

(c)a work of artistic craftsmanship.

(2)In this Part—

* “building” includes any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure;
* “graphic work” includes—

(a)any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and

(b)any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work;

* “photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;
* “sculpture” includes a cast or model made for purposes of sculpture.

Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.

(1)The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work.

(2)Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.

(3)If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires—

(a)at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b)if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

subject as follows.

(4)Subsection (2) applies if the identity of the author becomes known before the end of the period specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3).

(5)For the purposes of subsection (3) making available to the public includes—

(a)in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work—

(i)performance in public, or

[F2(ii)communication to the public;]

(b)in the case of an artistic work—

(i)exhibition in public,

(ii)a film including the work being shown in public, or

[F3(iii)communication to the public;]

but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.

(6)Where the country of origin of the work is not an EEA state and the author of the work is not a national of an EEA state, the duration of copyright is that to which the work is entitled in the country of origin, provided that does not exceed the period which would apply under subsections (2) to (5).

(7)If the work is computer-generated the above provisions do not apply and copyright expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made.

(8)The provisions of this section are adapted as follows in relation to a work of joint authorship—

(a)the reference in subsection (2) to the death of the author shall be construed—

(i)if the identity of all the authors is known, as a reference to the death of the last of them to die, and

(ii)if the identity of one or more of the authors is known and the identity of one or more others is not, as a reference to the death of the last whose identity is known;

(b)the reference in subsection (4) to the identity of the author becoming known shall be construed as a reference to the identity of any of the authors becoming known;

(c)the reference in subsection (6) to the author not being a national of an EEA state shall be construed as a reference to none of the authors being a national of an EEA state.

(9)This section does not apply to Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright (see sections 163 to [F4166D]) or to copyright which subsists by virtue of section 168 (copyright of certain international organisations).]

The acts restricted by copyright in a work

(1)The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—

(a)to copy the work (see section 17);

(b)to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);

[F1(ba)to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);]

(c)to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);

[F2(d)to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);]

(e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);

and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the copyright”.

(2)Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

(3)References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it—

(a)in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it, and

(b)either directly or indirectly;

and it is immaterial whether any intervening acts themselves infringe copyright.

(4)This Chapter has effect subject to—

(a)the provisions of Chapter III (acts permitted in relation to copyright works), and

(b)the provisions of Chapter VII (provisions with respect to copyright licensing).

Infringement by issue of copies to the public

(1)The issue to the public of copies of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work.

[F1(2)References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of a work are to—

(a)the act of putting into circulation in the EEA copies not previously put into circulation in the EEA by or with the consent of the copyright owner, or

(b)the act of putting into circulation outside the EEA copies not previously put into circulation in the EEA or elsewhere.

(3)References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of a work do not include—

(a)any subsequent distribution, sale, hiring or loan of copies previously put into circulation (but see section 18A: infringement by rental or lending), or

(b)any subsequent importation of such copies into the United Kingdom or another EEA state,

except so far as paragraph (a) of subsection (2) applies to putting into circulation in the EEA copies previously put into circulation outside the EEA.]

[F2(4)References in this Part to the issue of copies of a work include the issue of the original.]

Secondary infringement: providing means for making infringing copies

(1)Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner—

(a)makes,

(b)imports into the United Kingdom,

(c)possesses in the course of a business, or

(d)sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,

an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of that work, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies.

(2)Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner transmits the work by means of a telecommunications system (otherwise than by [F1communication to the public]), knowing or having reason to believe that infringing copies of the work will be made by means of the reception of the transmission in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

Infringement of copyright by copying

(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.

(3)In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.

(4)Copying in relation to a film [F1or broadcast] includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film [F1or broadcast].

(5)Copying in relation to the typographical arrangement of a published edition means making a facsimile copy of the arrangement.

(6)Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.



BOOM. Lawyered. Any questions?

had a guy at the LGS who used to make moldsof his minis and cast plaster replicas. we found out when he dropped a rhino, and it was smashed to smithereens.

Did the Games Workshop FBI Strike Team instantly burst in and shoot his dog while arresting him?

Emerett wrote:Did the Games Workshop FBI Strike Team instantly burst in and shoot his dog while arresting him?

No the Thought Police did

The basic issue is that piracy always will exist. As long as there is an anonymous internet account, that will occur. People will OPEN SOURCE pirated goods and projects. Its not going to not occur,.

Rather than trying to shut down minis as they emerge, games workshop should be trying to integrate 3d printing into the hobby. Perhaps charging a fee for copies of the schematics, or perhaps have a subscription to use game workshop blueprints.

I know a few people who would go that method.

You can cite all the copyright laws you want, some people will still pirate, and not get caught. The rewards are greater than the risk at this stage, especially when 3d printing is still so young.

Doctadeth wrote:Rather than trying to shut down minis as they emerge, games workshop should be trying to integrate 3d printing into the hobby. Perhaps charging a fee for copies of the schematics, or perhaps have a subscription to use game workshop blueprints.

Why wouldn't people simply pirate the schematics or blueprints?

GW is a company that exists because of copyright law. They wouldn't exist as a company if pirating their products were easy.

Nocturn wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Making molds of copyrighted materials and selling the molds is still infringement and is not legal... But if you think it is, knock yourself out. When you are in court feel free to say "a guy on the Internet said I could."

Citations, please. There's no point to making an argument if you're not going to back it up. Citations or you're wrong.

Lern2google or read the hundreds of threads about piracy and copyright infringement. Making molds of copyrighted material is infringement as the molds are not only derivative works but are means for redistribution which is also illegal. They infringe both on the model itself and the copyrights of the GW mold which is copyrighted itself.

Yes, people who make molds have the copyright on their mold as well! If you duplicate the mold by casting a mold of an object produced by the mold, it is still derivative works and you are infringing and the copyright holder has control.

Go check out Hirst molds legal page. If you recast the items that comes out of his molds and make a new mold, he still owns the copyrights. So does GW and anyone who makes molds.

I know some of you guys are frothing at the mouth to get away with hundreds of free models and have no problems with piracy and destroying copyrights because you believe in the free exchange of other people's ideas, but being purposefully dence by saying piracy and copyright infringement is legal until you are spoonfed a link to google is absurdity.

Also:

Nocturn wrote:Citations, please. There's no point to making an argument if you're not going to back it up. Citations or you're wrong.

A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir., 2001).
Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc., 902 F. 2d 829, (11th Cir., 1990).
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc. 749 F.2d 154 (3rd Cir., 1984).
Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir., 1971).

People need to understand that a capitalist society based on owning ideas and expecting a constantly growing market isn't sustainable or even desirable. I'm not saying that I know the better answer, but increasing levels of automation are already costing jobs and with ever increasing technology we could see robots more and more outside of the factory doing simple tasks like paving roads and laying sidewalks. Once that sort of thing hits so many people will be out of work that we'll have to rethink things anyway.

But the problem is, the supposed counter to piracy requires money. How can companies like GW pay for counter-piracy measures (such as further improving models/implementing and maintaining a schematics system etc) when people will be able to easily print out high-quality copies of the models? (These systems need money)

Its a downwards spiral unless something is done. We need a controlled internet.

So Biccat, rather than distributing their schematics in a fashion that would mean that people would have exact copies at a price, which would ALSO dissuade people from pirating because if leaks occur, GW would have the people who bought that product within that timeframe.

Essentially what this boils down to is that piracy/theft is always going to occur, especially when the product is very highly priced, and if cheaper substitutes are available, people will use them.

So it is either GW sanctioned piracy which can have quite a bit of regulation, or straight out piracy, which denudes GW of most product.

Even if GW just keep suing, people will keep pirating, it is inevitable. You can cite whatever laws or rights you want. Piracy is always going to happen, like those movie pirates down at the penny shop.

So it is either GW sanctioned piracy which can have quite a bit of regulation

Where does the money come for this? and how do you make the schematics traceable...

I do believe it's quite easy to make a password activated file ALA Itunes/giftcard style. Using off-site activation to trace files on the web. And money for this would come from the purchaser of the schematic.

Its not a hard concept and it's been done before many times with great success.

and for every great success, tools have been made to remove the copy protection in these sorts of distribution methods.

Doctadeth wrote:So Biccat, rather than distributing their schematics in a fashion that would mean that people would have exact copies at a price, which would ALSO dissuade people from pirating because if leaks occur, GW would have the people who bought that product within that timeframe.

Like you said, piracy is always going to occur. However, if you make piracy more expensive less people will do it. But if you make piracy less expensive, more people will do it.

Allowing people to print at home and releasing the schematics actually makes piracy less expensive because there's no connection between the piracy and the physical product - my legitimately-obtained printed Dreadnought will look and cost identical to your pirated printed Dreadnought. The only difference is how we acquired the instructions.

However, if you make a mold of the Dreadnought and reproduce it, you could have errors in casting, use an inferior material with less definition, or have a product that is less valuable on the secondary market. All of these are costs (in addition to the mold-making process) that you bear and the legitimate purchaser doesn't bear. Same applies to 3d printers.

Ergo, while piracy may occur, it is actually more expensive to pirate and reproduce non-digital copies than it is to pirate digital copies.

As another example: if I wanted to pirate an e-book, it would be very easy and inexpensive and the piracy would be virtually undetectable. Try doing that with a paperback.

Canadian 5th wrote:Copyright is becoming a bit of an anachronism with the advent of the information age. How do you stop file sharing when its backbone is made up of movable servers and dispersed uploaders and downloading peers? The answer is simply that as with the war on drugs stopping it completely is impossible and even just attempting to stem the tide is so costly and manpower intensive as to be a futile effort.

The fact of the matter is that GW can't win this fight by throwing money at it and trying to sue anonymous people on the internet. Suing or trying to take legal action against a website has already shown to be spotty if it's hosted outside of a country interested in stemming piracy. After all, TPB has survived many attempts to have it taken down and still hasn't given an inch.

People need to understand that a capitalist society based on owning ideas and expecting a constantly growing market isn't sustainable or even desirable. I'm not saying that I know the better answer, but increasing levels of automation are already costing jobs and with ever increasing technology we could see robots more and more outside of the factory doing simple tasks like paving roads and laying sidewalks. Once that sort of thing hits so many people will be out of work that we'll have to rethink things anyway.

----

On a side note bones and other tissue has been grown in the lab and there is a lot of research going into artificial meat as well as reprocessing waste into consumable food. Thus I don't see the idea of 'printing' food as that far fetched, especially if it takes less land use than ranching or other forms of commercial farming. I do however think we're a fairly long way off from seeing vat grown meat next to a cut of beef in the grocery store.

You have no idea how nice it is to see someone else with a grasp of the situation that extends beyond their own nose and the next decade.

As for vat-meat, we may be a decade or two away from prime whole cuts, but you'll certainly be seeing it on shelves in sausage/burger/etc form fairly soon. Even the stuff the labs are producing now is technically edible, it's just not been declared as such by the authorities, and it isn't appetising straight out of the bioreactor(hence why it'll begin life in sausages and burgers, where its flavour and texture can be manipulated to some extent after it's been grown).

People can bleat about "piracy"(which is a ludicrous term in and of itself) all they want, our choices are to use emerging technologies for the benefit of all mankind, or engage in some kind of monstrous Luddite Corporatism; there are already commercial-scale 3D printers which can manufacture an object with multiple moving parts, from the ground up and fully assembled, in less than an hour, without the touch of a single human hand. Does anyone honestly think we'd have iTunes, or Steam, or Pandora, or Last.fm etc etc etc today if not for Napster, Limewire, TPB? Of course not; you'd still be forking over £15-18 for a 10-track album just to get the one track you actually like. People like to claim that capitalism drives innovation, but that's increasing not the case, rather it stifles it, because once a commercial entity reaches a critical mass of wealth and influence -as the music and movie industries have done- the system breaks down, and it become more profitable for them to expend tens of millions buying up patents on innovative new technologies in order to bury them in the deepest darkest filing cabinet they can find, and tens of millions more to buy the votes of politicians.

As to the dreadnaught itself; as with music and film "piracy", even if 3D printing was capable of allowing non-business users to get a perfect 1-1 copy right now, which it isn't, it's nothing new, it's simply an issue of scale. VHS, cassettes, making moulds for your own use - torrents, napster, 3D printing; fundamentally the act is the same, a copying of information, and fundamentally sharing is the same, whether it's you loaning a friend a book, movie, or a press-mould of a Marine shoulderpad, or if it's you uploading digital copies of that same information to the internet - scale is the only difference. We should be embracing 3D printing and technologies like it, because it offers us the chance to do something that was unthinkable even a decade ago; end scarcity.

Emerett wrote:Please expand nk, citations and a example of your expertise would be great.

http://www.copyright.gov/

Adam LongWalker wrote:

Emerett wrote:Did the Games Workshop FBI Strike Team instantly burst in and shoot his dog while arresting him?

No the Thought Police did

he stopped playing at that store, most likely going to the other LGS in town, which is all gak.

We should be embracing 3D printing and technologies like it

So, again, why ever buy a model again if we embrace 3D printing?

Is this really a CHEAPER alternative?

Only if you were going to buy £1000+ worth of dreadnoughts.

Mr Hyena wrote:

People need to understand that a capitalist society based on owning ideas and expecting a constantly growing market isn't sustainable or even desirable. I'm not saying that I know the better answer, but increasing levels of automation are already costing jobs and with ever increasing technology we could see robots more and more outside of the factory doing simple tasks like paving roads and laying sidewalks. Once that sort of thing hits so many people will be out of work that we'll have to rethink things anyway.

But the problem is, the supposed counter to piracy requires money. How can companies like GW pay for counter-piracy measures (such as further improving models/implementing and maintaining a schematics system etc) when people will be able to easily print out high-quality copies of the models? (These systems need money)

Its a downwards spiral unless something is done. We need a controlled internet.

No, as controlling the internet isn't actually feasible for any non-omniscient government body. People had plans in place to deal with SOPA/PIPA should the worst happen with that, and generally the internet is pretty adaptable. Thus, just as policing liquor during prohibition didn't work and the wars on drugs is a waste of lives and money, any attempt to control the internet will be an expensive failure with limited results shown for it.

Instead, we need to accept that the system as we've built it is flawed and can't remain in the face easy information sharing. Look at how many jobs a dumb machine like a self checkout has cost, or the robots in the auto industry that forced the unions to make insane demands that ensured they needed to be bailed out; we also have a large, but non-related issue, the banks. While the bailouts (for both banks and car makers) needed to happen, how long do we want to be chained to the greedy sociopaths that run multinational corporations?

When a robot can build a house faster and cheaper than a construction company, who would still hire a man? When the government looks to have roads repaved, would they rather pay some shovel leaner, or a few guys to make sure the bots don't break down? Once this level of change starts where do we replace those lost jobs? The answer will either be with more low wage service industry employment which will only grow the wealth gap, or they will simply be marginalized and told to learn to program robots.

So what do you do when men are replaced by machines and less and less people can find work? If you're a growth based multinational corporation you slash works and reap record profits while telling people that if they work hard they too can rise to the top. If your a government with lobbyists in every ear you pass some token laws, but not much more because even in many countries with good safety nets people resent paying to keep people who don't work going. There is no third option the way things stand, more people will slip down and the world's depression and debt scares will simply become ever more and more likely.

Where does the line get drawn, legally or ethically, between GW's policy of 'scratchbuilt models are fine and legal' and 'this very limited production model a bit like ours is illegal', I wonder?

Miraclefish wrote:Where does the line get drawn, legally or ethically, between GW's policy of 'scratchbuilt models are fine and legal' and 'this very limited production model a bit like ours is illegal', I wonder?

That particular line on the sand is currently being drawn with GW vs Chapterhouse.

...Presumably drawn with a child's thigh bone dipped in the blood of the innocent!

Wait, GW went after a website for doing something illegal. When their whole operation is technically illegal
Say what you want but they have gall.
Or a nail in their head.
its probably both.

Okay I'll bite. Why is GWs whole operation illegal?

I appreciate it is best to hide things in plain site sometimes. But a company with £120M turnover has something to go after, I'm gonna guess that if it was illegal there would be people taking chunks of that.

Mr Hyena wrote:But the problem is, the supposed counter to piracy requires money. How can companies like GW pay for counter-piracy measures (such as further improving models/implementing and maintaining a schematics system etc) when people will be able to easily print out high-quality copies of the models? (These systems need money)

Its a downwards spiral unless something is done. We need a controlled internet.

The answer is simple: they should change their outdated business model and stop whining. Anyone who makes a profit in a capitalist society has tacitly agreed to abide by the principles of that society: survival of the fittest. If piracy means the end of your business model, then your business model is going to fail. It's as simple as that.

Thanks to the US in recent years, capitalism has become synonymous with draconian copyright laws, but they are not actually one and the same. Capitalism simply means the pursuit of wealth within a competitive market. However, many companies (GW included) have tried to make their own company more competitive not by improving it, but by preventing other companies from competing in the same market. That is not Capitalism. That is legislating in a monopoly; which is a concept that is anathema to Capitalism.

The fact of the matter is that piracy will not put anyone out of business if they don't operate under a business model that deserves to be put out of business. Piracy merely pulls the plug on the life support system of US Intellectual Property laws; and if a company is only still in business due to these laws, then the instant that company dies, a new and better one will replace it. Why? Because that is one of the core tenets of what Capitalism actually is.

Piracy will not harm the means of production. It will only force companies to hobble the salaries of those at the top of the corporate ladder. The reason for this is because production salaries will always be as low as is legally possible, as will actual production costs. So, if piracy is able to pose a legitimate threat to a business model, the easiest way to stem the piracy threat is to adjust the selling price per unit so that it operates as a function of the product's quality at a level that people are willing to pay for through legitimate means. (for example, the polarized opposite of Finecast) However, if this means dropping the prices significantly, and there is no way to decrease the cost of production further, then the company will simply have to pay its heads less. Because corporate salaries is where most of a corporation's gross revenue actually goes. Let's take Apple as an example. Your $700 iPad is made in China by workers that earn about $0.35 per hour. If that iPad was made in the USA by workers that earn at least the minimum wage, then your iPad would cost about $735 dollars. However, if Apple eliminated the salaries of its top 20 employees, then your iPad would likely cost about $450 (this figure allows for Apple to make a 20% gross profit on each unit and still pay everyone in the company below a boardroom level their current wage), even if it was made in the USA.

So Mr Hyena, I cannot help but simultaneously laugh at the irony and recoil in the horror of your comment, considering that in your concern about a downward spiral you have suggested censoring the greatest free speech tool in the history of mankind.

notprop wrote:Okay I'll bite. Why is GWs whole operation illegal?

I appreciate it is best to hide things in plain site sometimes. But a company with £120M turnover has something to go after, I'm gonna guess that if it was illegal there would be people taking chunks of that.

I mean the site itself. Armed police couldnt stop the site. a cease and desist from GW wont.

azazel the cat wrote:The fact of the matter is that piracy will not put anyone out of business if they don't operate under a business model that deserves to be put out of business. Piracy merely pulls the plug on the life support system of US Intellectual Property laws; and if a company is only still in business due to these laws, then the instant that company dies, a new and better one will replace it. Why? Because that is one of the core tenets of what Capitalism actually is.

Question:

Without intellectual property rights, how do authors and music artists get compensated for their work?

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:The fact of the matter is that piracy will not put anyone out of business if they don't operate under a business model that deserves to be put out of business. Piracy merely pulls the plug on the life support system of US Intellectual Property laws; and if a company is only still in business due to these laws, then the instant that company dies, a new and better one will replace it. Why? Because that is one of the core tenets of what Capitalism actually is.

Question:

Without intellectual property rights, how do authors and music artists get compensated for their work?

Stoping piracy is a pipe dream. All you can do is build good rapport with your customers and show them you will do hand stands for them and make good products.
Gw only does one of those things.

biccat wrote:

Doctadeth wrote:So Biccat, rather than distributing their schematics in a fashion that would mean that people would have exact copies at a price, which would ALSO dissuade people from pirating because if leaks occur, GW would have the people who bought that product within that timeframe.

Like you said, piracy is always going to occur. However, if you make piracy more expensive less people will do it. But if you make piracy less expensive, more people will do it.

Allowing people to print at home and releasing the schematics actually makes piracy less expensive because there's no connection between the piracy and the physical product - my legitimately-obtained printed Dreadnought will look and cost identical to your pirated printed Dreadnought. The only difference is how we acquired the instructions.

However, if you make a mold of the Dreadnought and reproduce it, you could have errors in casting, use an inferior material with less definition, or have a product that is less valuable on the secondary market. All of these are costs (in addition to the mold-making process) that you bear and the legitimate purchaser doesn't bear. Same applies to 3d printers.

Ergo, while piracy may occur, it is actually more expensive to pirate and reproduce non-digital copies than it is to pirate digital copies.

As another example: if I wanted to pirate an e-book, it would be very easy and inexpensive and the piracy would be virtually undetectable. Try doing that with a paperback.

Intersting points you raise.

Except they made piracy cheaper with the embargo. Now, people will sell sprues as used parts out of the box, encouraging people to clone them with inferior materials much more easily whereas people won't go to the effort of copying the box.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:The fact of the matter is that piracy will not put anyone out of business if they don't operate under a business model that deserves to be put out of business. Piracy merely pulls the plug on the life support system of US Intellectual Property laws; and if a company is only still in business due to these laws, then the instant that company dies, a new and better one will replace it. Why? Because that is one of the core tenets of what Capitalism actually is.

Question:

Without intellectual property rights, how do authors and music artists get compensated for their work?

Go ask Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails.

Not coincidentally, these two bands also kick butt on stage. You know, how bands used to get paid.

I do understand where you're coming from (it's you, biccat, who is the IP lawyer, right?) but the truth of the matter is that record companies cried about how cassette tapes would be the end of the world back in the 1980s, and that writeable CDs would also end the world back in the 1990s, and most recently about how MP3 players would end the world in the 2000s. But the world did not end the first time the RIAA cried wolf. And it did not end the second time the RIAA cried wolf. Nor did it end the third time the RIAA cried wolf. And now nobody will ever listen to them again. But yet record companies still exist, and that is not because of their efforts to stymie technology; they still exist because consumers permit them to exist, even when there are piracy options available.

Ultimately, companies just have to recognize that "loss" =\= "less than the potential maximization of profit"

Mr Hyena wrote:

We should be embracing 3D printing and technologies like it

So, again, why ever buy a model again if we embrace 3D printing?

We wouldn't, which is the point. In the short term, 3D printing will be a business innovation, in model making it would replace injection moulding and similar industrial-scale plastic forming techniques, once it reaches the required fidelity, and yes, during this period there will likely be people sharing scans of miniatures or their own ripoff designs over the internet so people can 3D print them at home; just as is currently the case with products that are purely information like music and movies - industries which are, by the way, posting record profits every year. In the medium-term, the illegal filesharing online will force the commercial entities to innovate and change their business models(just as it has in the movie and music industries); instead of miniature companies making physical products, they'll sell electronic files with the information necessary to print your own models on your Sony KL-5 Super-3D. In the long term, once automation advances to a degree sufficient to also remove labour requirements from resource extraction, processing, and transportation, it won't matter if someone "steals" a design and makes their own copy, or remixes someone else's work, because modern orthodox economics will be entirely obsolete; if all infrastructure is built and maintained automatically, if food is produced automatically, if resources are extracted, processed, and transported automatically, and those resources are made into final products automatically, the only way to base a monetary economy on that process is to use legal and governmental authority to enforce artificial scarcity.

Automation has only one possible outcome; the end of capitalism, indeed all current economic theory. The only variables are how long it takes, and how painful it is for the people not in control of the current system. If we embrace new technology, invest in research, and expect business to innovate rather than legislate its way through this transitionary period, then it will take some small number of decades and be as smooth as such a paradigm shift can be. If we take the other course, shunning technological advancements, stunting research, and using propaganda and the law to attempt to suppress competition, then we'll be living through a century-long Gilded-age, where an increasing wealth gap consigns large sections of the population to permanent poverty while the current wealth holders become an unassailable elite more entrenched than any nobility of years past.

"Piracy" is the symptom of a world out of step with itself. The internet is a place where scarcity must be imposed in order for it to exist; fundamentally scarcity cannot exist in a system where an item can be reproduced endlessly and with perfect fidelity for near-zero cost. However, the internet exists in a world which is still subject to scarcity due to labour costs, and so which requires that interactions resulting in information exchange be mutually compensatory. The question is; would you rather we work to make the real world emulate the internet, or stifle the internet in order that it conform to the real world?

azazel the cat wrote:Go ask Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails.

Not coincidentally, these two bands also kick butt on stage. You know, how bands used to get paid.

Both of those albums were released well into their NIN and Radiohead's careers, after they had made a good living on their first 6 albums (or thereabouts).

azazel the cat wrote:I do understand where you're coming from (it's you, biccat, who is the IP lawyer, right?) but the truth of the matter is that record companies cried about how cassette tapes would be the end of the world back in the 1980s, and that writeable CDs would also end the world back in the 1990s, and most recently about how MP3 players would end the world in the 2000s. But the world did not end the first time the RIAA cried wolf. And it did not end the second time the RIAA cried wolf. Nor did it end the third time the RIAA cried wolf. And now nobody will ever listen to them again. But yet record companies still exist, and that is not because of their efforts to stymie technology; they still exist because consumers permit them to exist, even when there are piracy options available.

Yes, I'm an IP lawyer, but I don't really think you've thought this through.

Imagine there's no IP protection. Once Company A releases an album I would copy the CD and cover art, repackage the whole thing, and it at a lower price than Company A. I would use a professional-level CD copier and printer. There would be almost no discernable difference between the original and my copy. The key difference would be that I don't have to pay the performer anything, so my copy could sell for a few dollars less. Repeat for movies, books, and any other media that you like.

The purpose of copyright law isn't to stop individual users, it's to stop large competitors. The cost to sue individual users grossly outweighs any benefit you would get.

Sites like MegaUpload and Pirate Bay have more in common with large competitors than individual users because they're directly trading on the IP of other companies without having to compensate the artists who create the work.

A guy at my local FLGS has one of those printers @ school and he used it to print 120 space marines and 50 terminators out of it!

Okay it is illegal, okay the models have just 6 different shapes and are all one piece,
but he saved 934$ on those mini's!

hotsauceman1 wrote:Wait, GW went after a website for doing something illegal. When their whole operation is technically illegal
Say what you want but they have gall.
Or a nail in their head.
its probably both.

It's not illegal until a judge says it was.

Also, US law is pliable, maybe it won't be illegal after the case is over.

biccat wrote:Imagine there's no IP protection. Once Company A releases an album I would copy the CD and cover art, repackage the whole thing, and it at a lower price than Company A. I would use a professional-level CD copier and printer. There would be almost no discernable difference between the original and my copy. The key difference would be that I don't have to pay the performer anything, so my copy could sell for a few dollars less. Repeat for movies, books, and any other media that you like.

The purpose of copyright law isn't to stop individual users, it's to stop large competitors. The cost to sue individual users grossly outweighs any benefit you would get.

Sites like MegaUpload and Pirate Bay have more in common with large competitors than individual users because they're directly trading on the IP of other companies without having to compensate the artists who create the work.

Oddly enough people would still create art and music and make a career out of it using the same cheap methods as the pirates. How much more money does the RIAA make on CD sales each year compared to their artists? Good bands would get exposure through radio deals, the internet, and then make money through live shows as they always have. They might earn less, but compared to the level of work they do they and many other high earners could stand to make less and still live comfortably.

As for suing TPB into oblivion, I must ask how it's worked so far and if people really believe it would do anything. It gets even better now that they plan to switch entirely to magnet links so anybody will be able to copy their entire database in under 200 megabytes.

Frankly IP is no longer being used for what it was intended for anyway. It was laid down in US law to encourage creativity, but lifetime+ copyright for things like Mickey Mouse due to bribes by large companies have perverted it and people like you make a living ensuring your corporate masters wallets grow ever fatter. Better nobody make money than the corporate fat cats who buy policy and get handed money for failure because they're 'too big to fail.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emerett wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Wait, GW went after a website for doing something illegal. When their whole operation is technically illegal
Say what you want but they have gall.
Or a nail in their head.
its probably both.

It's not illegal until a judge says it was.

Also, US law is pliable, maybe it won't be illegal after the case is over.

US law tends to be pliable towards those with highly paid lobbyists and/or those that donate large sums to campaigns. Less so toward minorities, the poor, and anybody else that doesn't aid in assured reelection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolf_Ov_The_Void wrote:A guy at my local FLGS has one of those printers @ school and he used it to print 120 space marines and 50 terminators out of it!

Okay it is illegal, okay the models have just 6 different shapes and are all one piece,
but he saved 934$ on those mini's!

Good on him, he's got the entrepreneurial spirit that people are supposed to have to live the American dream. How many large companies got rich from shady deals many years ago and now use that power to keep others from doing the same?

Canadian 5th wrote:Oddly enough people would still create art and music and make a career out of it using the same cheap methods as the pirates. How much more money does the RIAA make on CD sales each year compared to their artists? Good bands would get exposure through radio deals, the internet, and then make money through live shows as they always have. They might earn less, but compared to the level of work they do they and many other high earners could stand to make less and still live comfortably.

And yet...because I don't have to pay the artists, I will still be able to undercut them. Especially because they won't be using production-level equipment.

Do you think the total value of music today is greater or less than the total value of music 100 years ago?

Canadian 5th wrote:As for suing TPB into oblivion, I must ask how it's worked so far and if people really believe it would do anything. It gets even better now that they plan to switch entirely to magnet links so anybody will be able to copy their entire database in under 200 megabytes.

Give me dictator-like powers and I'll shut down TPB. Heck, just give me a wealthy enough client who is willing to do whatever it takes and I'll shut them down.

biccat wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Oddly enough people would still create art and music and make a career out of it using the same cheap methods as the pirates. How much more money does the RIAA make on CD sales each year compared to their artists? Good bands would get exposure through radio deals, the internet, and then make money through live shows as they always have. They might earn less, but compared to the level of work they do they and many other high earners could stand to make less and still live comfortably.

And yet...because I don't have to pay the artists, I will still be able to undercut them. Especially because they won't be using production-level equipment.

Do you think the total value of music today is greater or less than the total value of music 100 years ago?

That's great, many people will stay pay the artist and they will always have first crack at dealing with radio stations and generating add revenue from their music/brand so they still out earn you no matter what your price CD's at. Self produced artists also only lose time compared to you. A copy cat also can't make nearly as much on live shows even if they do get the look and lip syncing down. So while you can sell your cheap bootlegs, just as you could sell cheap CD's or VHS's the artist and label will still get the vast majority of the profits from sources you can't have.

It's also been shown that piracy of a product tends to increase income for the producers of the product. Of course somebody in your field should already be up on such studies so I'll only link them if you show that you suck at your job enough to ask for them. Heck, even if you have I bet you'll spew a bunch of nonsense from studies back by the companies against piracy while ignoring the validity of third party studies.

As to the value of music of course it's higher today but that's a factor of population increase, mass production technology, greater ease of broadcasting/distribution, and plain inflation.

biccat wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:As for suing TPB into oblivion, I must ask how it's worked so far and if people really believe it would do anything. It gets even better now that they plan to switch entirely to magnet links so anybody will be able to copy their entire database in under 200 megabytes.

Give me dictator-like powers and I'll shut down TPB. Heck, just give me a wealthy enough client who is willing to do whatever it takes and I'll shut them down.

Who would grant you those powers just so you can censor the internet? The people have spoken and it wasn't for draconian measures against the internet.

Also, even with those steps good luck getting it to stay down given that private citizens already have backups of the data stored on those servers and even at it's worst it was piss easy to get to a webpage blocked by SOPA/PIPA.

@ avatar 720
How about these ? http://www.shapeways.com/model/414990/autocannon_arms_v0_5.html?gid=mg
Will they do ?

Canadian 5th wrote:So while you can sell your cheap bootlegs, just as you could sell cheap CD's or VHS's the artist and label will still get the vast majority of the profits from sources you can't have.

I don't think you understand. These aren't "cheap bootlegs," they're similar quality to anything that is available today, from anyone. Remember, copyright is gone.

I'll also reproduce video games. And movies. So while the studio might make a movie for $10 million and has to sell 1 million DVD's at $15 each, I'll sell the same at $5 each, almost all profit.

Canadian 5th wrote:Of course somebody in your field should already be up on such studies so I'll only link them if you show that you suck at your job enough to ask for them. Heck, even if you have I bet you'll spew a bunch of nonsense from studies back by the companies against piracy while ignoring the validity of third party studies.

Why should I care about studies about piracy? Those things have zero impact on my job, one way or the other.

Canadian 5th wrote:

biccat wrote:Give me dictator-like powers and I'll shut down TPB. Heck, just give me a wealthy enough client who is willing to do whatever it takes and I'll shut them down.

Who would grant you those powers just so you can censor the internet? The people have spoken and it wasn't for draconian measures against the internet.

Just over the US armed forces or CIA. I'm not talking about censoring the internet, I'm talking about going against copyright infringement.

I could also do it through the courts if I had a favorable prosecutor (not doing anything illegal, simply for issuing subpoenas and signing off on warrants). And, again, enough money. Lawsuits aren't cheap.

Canadian 5th wrote:Also, even with those steps good luck getting it to stay down given that private citizens already have backups of the data stored on those servers and even at it's worst it was piss easy to get to a webpage blocked by SOPA/PIPA.

Well, first you're wrong about SOPA/PIPA, but if you really want to have that debate, either start a new thread or send me a PM.

Second, only people who have already made the investment in backing up TPB are going to be able to continue to use its services. At the very least, it would cut down on piracy. Which is the ultimate goal.

biccat wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:So while you can sell your cheap bootlegs, just as you could sell cheap CD's or VHS's the artist and label will still get the vast majority of the profits from sources you can't have.

I don't think you understand. These aren't "cheap bootlegs," they're similar quality to anything that is available today, from anyone. Remember, copyright is gone.

I'll also reproduce video games. And movies. So while the studio might make a movie for $10 million and has to sell 1 million DVD's at $15 each, I'll sell the same at $5 each, almost all profit.

With video games we're already seeing a trend towards requiring the user connect to a dedicated server or lose a portion of or the entirety of a pirated game's functionality. You also don't tend to see games like WoW pirated for this very reason so it's pretty easy to adapt to.

As for movies the company still get the theater rights and will have the drop on initial DVD/Blueray/Online sales where the vast majority of the money is made.

Why should I care about studies about piracy? Those things have zero impact on my job, one way or the other.

Seems like as an IP lawyer knowing something about studies related to piracy would be a useful thing given how closely the two areas are related.

Just over the US armed forces or CIA. I'm not talking about censoring the internet, I'm talking about going against copyright infringement.

I could also do it through the courts if I had a favorable prosecutor (not doing anything illegal, simply for issuing subpoenas and signing off on warrants). And, again, enough money. Lawsuits aren't cheap.

Send all the warrents, subpoenas, and the like as you want. Unless the person is caught in a country that cares and has favorable extradition laws you've accomplished nothing for all the effort.

Well, first you're wrong about SOPA/PIPA, but if you really want to have that debate, either start a new thread or send me a PM.

Sorry, you're frankly wrong given how easy it is to cache IP's as they only take down DNS names. You could also run your own DNS server, such an act would also prompt other nations to start building up their own DNS servers so as to not be at the mercy of a crazy US gov't. But please, share your thoughts on the issue.

Second, only people who have already made the investment in backing up TPB are going to be able to continue to use its services. At the very least, it would cut down on piracy. Which is the ultimate goal.

Until they host that info on another website and then you're stuck play whack a mole to keep the data down because you can no longer eliminate it. That's just a massive waste of money that gets very little done. It would be worse cost to effect wise than the war on drugs and we all know how well that one's going...

Canadian 5th wrote:As for movies the company still get the theater rights and will have the drop on initial DVD/Blueray/Online sales where the vast majority of the money is made.

The counter to copyright laws then is contract law? Seems unnecessary, although profitable for contract lawyers.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Why should I care about studies about piracy? Those things have zero impact on my job, one way or the other.

Seems like as an IP lawyer knowing something about studies related to piracy would be a useful thing given how closely the two areas are related.

And you would be wrong.

Canadian 5th wrote:Sorry, you're frankly wrong given how easy it is to cache IP's as they only take down DNS names. You could also run your own DNS server, such an act would also prompt other nations to start building up their own DNS servers so as to not be at the mercy of a crazy US gov't. But please, share your thoughts on the issue.

Actually I misread your post. I thought you said it was easy to get a site blocked by SOPA/PIPA. My apologies.

Yeah, you're right that it would be easy to still pirate even in the age of SOPA/PIPA. It just wouldn't be possible to make money with it. If you want to host a pirating website and pay thousands of dollars a month for bandwidth and hosting services (all outside of the US, unless you want to risk getting shut down by DMCA), then you could easily circumvent SOPA/PIPA. Well, SOPA at least. PIPA is a terrible law.

Canadian 5th wrote:Until they host that info on another website and then you're stuck play whack a mole to keep the data down because you can no longer eliminate it. That's just a massive waste of money that gets very little done. It would be worse cost to effect wise than the war on drugs and we all know how well that one's going...

Which is why I need dictatorial powers, or a client with deep pockets.

I never said it would be cheap, or easy for that matter.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Go ask Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails.

Not coincidentally, these two bands also kick butt on stage. You know, how bands used to get paid.

Both of those albums were released well into their NIN and Radiohead's careers, after they had made a good living on their first 6 albums (or thereabouts).

Then you've missed the point. I posted these examples because the bands still made a lot of money on these albums, irrespective of whether or not they were already established.

biccat wrote:Yes, I'm an IP lawyer, but I don't really think you've thought this through.

Imagine there's no IP protection. Once Company A releases an album I would copy the CD and cover art, repackage the whole thing, and it at a lower price than Company A. I would use a professional-level CD copier and printer. There would be almost no discernable difference between the original and my copy. The key difference would be that I don't have to pay the performer anything, so my copy could sell for a few dollars less. Repeat for movies, books, and any other media that you like.

I'm not saying that copyright laws should be eliminated; I'm merely pointing out that the reliance on draconian copyright laws is not a proper business model. And the point you are trying to make is rhetoric at best. History has shown that people will purchase albums legitimately if they feel the album is worth its price. The argument you are trying to make seems to be that IP law is the only thing that prevents people from choosing knockoff CDs; but this is akin to saying that punitive deterrence is the only thing that prevents me from walking down the street with a boxing glove and punching people in the groin. The fact of the matter is that most people won't do this, not out of fear of the penal system, but simply because they don't intend to be cockpunchers, and most people won't choose piracy not because of any IP laws, but because they wish to support the artists that they deem worthy of their support.

biccat wrote:The purpose of copyright law isn't to stop individual users, it's to stop large competitors.

And yet the RIAA continuously engages in abusive lawsuits against individual users. Again and again and again.

biccat wrote:Give me dictator-like powers and I'll shut down TPB. Heck, just give me a wealthy enough client who is willing to do whatever it takes and I'll shut them down.

I do enjoy civilized debates as I truly appreciate the adversarial process, but can we please skip the chest-thumping? Otherwise, I can just counter with "1kg caustic soda at 50% dilution per 30 lbs", and then I can seem tough and scary, too, butI'd rather not post silly things like that.

azazel the cat wrote:Then you've missed the point. I posted these examples because the bands still made a lot of money on these albums, irrespective of whether or not they were already established.

But they had a fallback position if they didn't make money on the albums, that's my point. It's easy to risk a million dollars when you have ten.

azazel the cat wrote:The argument you are trying to make seems to be that IP law is the only thing that prevents people from choosing knockoff CDs

Most of the deterrant against people purchasing knockoff CD's isn't that they're knockoffs, it's that they're usually poor quality and illegal (which has more of a psychological than real effect). But if I put a high quality knockoff next to a legitimate copy with the only difference being in price, most people will choose the knockoff.

azazel the cat wrote:I do enjoy civilized debates as I truly appreciate the adversarial process, but can we please skip the chest-thumping? Otherwise, I can just counter with "1kg caustic soda at 50% dilution per 30 lbs", and then I can seem tough and scary, too, butI'd rather not post silly things like that.

Half chest thumping, half pointing out that there are ways to take down TPB through legitimate (if inefficient) means. Especially without the parade of horribles that we're promised if there is ever any punitive action taken against anyone on the internet.

Sorry for the poor wording, I was trying to make the narrower point, but I see now that the "chest thumping" really does dominate.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Then you've missed the point. I posted these examples because the bands still made a lot of money on these albums, irrespective of whether or not they were already established.

But they had a fallback position if they didn't make money on the albums, that's my point. It's easy to risk a million dollars when you have ten.

You had to know that this was coming.

biccat wrote:Most of the deterrant against people purchasing knockoff CD's isn't that they're knockoffs, it's that they're usually poor quality and illegal (which has more of a psychological than real effect). But if I put a high quality knockoff next to a legitimate copy with the only difference being in price, most people will choose the knockoff.

Depends on how different the price is. And up until recently, it was quite common for recording artists to make almost nothing off of their albums; they were forced to tour in order to earn a living. I think you'll find it is very difficult to bootleg a live concert performance (the event itself, not a video of it).

biccat wrote:Sorry for the poor wording, I was trying to make the narrower point, but I see now that the "chest thumping" really does dominate.

No worries.

Wolf_Ov_The_Void wrote:A guy at my local FLGS has one of those printers @ school and he used it to print 120 space marines and 50 terminators out of it!

Okay it is illegal, okay the models have just 6 different shapes and are all one piece,
but he saved 934$ on those mini's!

I would accept that he didn't have to pay a game shop $934 for those minis. I would even accept that he didn't spend any of his money, but I would contend that someone spent quite a bit of money for him to make those 120 space marines and 50 terminators. The costs of running that printer have to be taken into account.

This is just like kids downloading a codex PDF off the internet and then printing it on Mommy and Daddy's printer. They did avoid giving their local game shop $35 for that codex, However, inkjet printing costs for the consumer printers are between 20 and 30 cents a page for this kind of color printing (depending on how much is text versus pictures and how much of the page is covered http://www.hp.com/sbso/productivity/color/print_cost_calc.html ), so a 150 page codex will cost them between $30 and $45 to print (with ink and paper, etc.). Then they come to the game store and brag on how they saved $35 by grabbing the codex online. I can't help but wonder if that WalMart bag that Dad has when he comes to pick him up has printer ink! All they did was change who got their money, in this case WalMart and the printer company instead of the local game store and GW.

TANSTAAFL. Somebody pays, in the codex case it's Mom and Dad, the mini's were probably paid for by the school.

Tye_Informer wrote:

Wolf_Ov_The_Void wrote:A guy at my local FLGS has one of those printers @ school and he used it to print 120 space marines and 50 terminators out of it!

Okay it is illegal, okay the models have just 6 different shapes and are all one piece,
but he saved 934$ on those mini's!

I would accept that he didn't have to pay a game shop $934 for those minis. I would even accept that he didn't spend any of his money, but I would contend that someone spent quite a bit of money for him to make those 120 space marines and 50 terminators. The costs of running that printer have to be taken into account.

This is just like kids downloading a codex PDF off the internet and then printing it on Mommy and Daddy's printer. They did avoid giving their local game shop $35 for that codex, However, inkjet printing costs for the consumer printers are between 20 and 30 cents a page for this kind of color printing (depending on how much is text versus pictures and how much of the page is covered http://www.hp.com/sbso/productivity/color/print_cost_calc.html ), so a 150 page codex will cost them between $30 and $45 to print (with ink and paper, etc.). Then they come to the game store and brag on how they saved $35 by grabbing the codex online. I can't help but wonder if that WalMart bag that Dad has when he comes to pick him up has printer ink! All they did was change who got their money, in this case WalMart and the printer company instead of the local game store and GW.

TANSTAAFL. Somebody pays, in the codex case it's Mom and Dad, the mini's were probably paid for by the school.

The plastic costs very little and the printer is put to other uses most of the time thus the cost is very low. The same would go to somebody printing a codex off at work and not paying a red cent. You could also put your PDF on a tablet that you already use for other things and not print jack. Your examples are pretty poor for showing how it costs you a lot to do this.

LazzurusMan wrote:Inspiration only...that is NOT a GW design XD

But I see why they are worried...many gamers don't play at GW...so things like this are perfect for those people...plus a 3D printer would save you loads compared to a 40k army...but it's not right.

Stuff like this NEEDS to be stopped.,..but unfortunately the only way is to ban the internet...and we all know that'll never happen.

Why exactly?. If i own a 3d printer, and want to print such model, why should i not be allowed to?, this is not a 3d scan of a GW product, thus i am not printing a GW product.