Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Arschbombe wrote:
Yes, you have. In this thread you have consistently come at the subject from a moralistic, not legal perspective.

Yes, I have. Does the thread topic say "Are third party bitz makers doing something illegal?" No. Why are you so interested in making this a legal discussion.

You've taken all the concrete legal discussion and tossed it aside saying, in effect, that you know wrong when you see it and that your conscience is a better barometer of what is right than the applicable law.

Yup. In 1850, it was legal to own slaves. In 1950, it was legal to refuse to serve blacks. In 2000, it was legal to deny consenting adults the right to get married. So what? This is a discussion board, not a legal discussion board. I don't have to agree with every law, nor believe that every law is correct. I'm a consumer, and I've a right to vote with my dollar, based on what I believe is right, not what someone else says is the law. I've a right to boycott businesses that support things I don't believe in, even if those things are legal.

Smoking pot is illegal. People still do it. I don't, but I don't think people who do should be punished. I don't think anti-marijuana laws are right, even though I've no interest myself. I think the current patent system is seriously messed up. The existence of patent trolls, companies that exist simply to stifle innovation and hold it hostage is proof, to me at least, that IP laws, in general, are broken in this country.

The law is not the end-all of discussions.

weeble1000 wrote:
I think you should shop with your conscience, which is essentially what I said in my previous response. Your opinions are all fine and well, but you brought up intellectual property rights. If you bring up the law, you should be prepared to discuss the law.

Rights != The Law. We've done this one before. Laws actually can restrict rights. You brought up the law, I did not.

Maybe you should care about the legal distinctions, because they affect you. I would also hope that by making an attempt to properly understand the legal distinctions, you would develop an appreciation for the purposes of such laws.

Maybe if you made an attempt to understand the state of IP law in this country, you wouldn't be so fast to defend it. America's IP laws are ludicrous and horribly outdated in a digital world. So why should I want to discuss whether something is legal in a broken legal system?

Redbeard wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:
Yes, you have. In this thread you have consistently come at the subject from a moralistic, not legal perspective.

Yes, I have. Does the thread topic say "Are third party bitz makers doing something illegal?" No. Why are you so interested in making this a legal discussion.

You've taken all the concrete legal discussion and tossed it aside saying, in effect, that you know wrong when you see it and that your conscience is a better barometer of what is right than the applicable law.

Yup. In 1850, it was legal to own slaves. In 1950, it was legal to refuse to serve blacks. In 2000, it was legal to deny consenting adults the right to get married. So what? This is a discussion board, not a legal discussion board. I don't have to agree with every law, nor believe that every law is correct. I'm a consumer, and I've a right to vote with my dollar, based on what I believe is right, not what someone else says is the law. I've a right to boycott businesses that support things I don't believe in, even if those things are legal.

Smoking pot is illegal. People still do it. I don't, but I don't think people who do should be punished. I don't think anti-marijuana laws are right, even though I've no interest myself. I think the current patent system is seriously messed up. The existence of patent trolls, companies that exist simply to stifle innovation and hold it hostage is proof, to me at least, that IP laws, in general, are broken in this country.

The law is not the end-all of discussions.

weeble1000 wrote:
I think you should shop with your conscience, which is essentially what I said in my previous response. Your opinions are all fine and well, but you brought up intellectual property rights. If you bring up the law, you should be prepared to discuss the law.

Rights != The Law. We've done this one before. Laws actually can restrict rights. You brought up the law, I did not.

Maybe you should care about the legal distinctions, because they affect you. I would also hope that by making an attempt to properly understand the legal distinctions, you would develop an appreciation for the purposes of such laws.

Maybe if you made an attempt to understand the state of IP law in this country, you wouldn't be so fast to defend it. America's IP laws are ludicrous and horribly outdated in a digital world. So why should I want to discuss whether something is legal in a broken legal system?

Broken or not the law is still the law. Dakka has a policy about making sure discussion of illegal activities is not allowed. You can not care all you want but ignoring the illegality of the topic you're discussing is usually frowned upon on dakka.

I like the third party bits makers but whether or not it is legal is undecided atm in the US.

The reason why the doomseer is the focal point is because it is the most advanced example of 3rd parties making a "GW model" vs "a model compatible with GW rules". Here is what the original TXT was:

Doomseer Iyanar-Duanna is cursed with the ability to forsee the slow death of her race. She shares the ability of all farseers to see the paths of her race, but is only able to see the deaths of her people and nothing else. She was psychically scarred when she witnessed the death of the people of Malantai, she is now doomed to spend every moment of her life tracking down the creature responsible

They quickly generalized it which shows they knew they had pushed too far. And while they may be legal, the intent turned many customers off. Some people dislike it. They want to support people who make their own original stuff.

There is a worlds difference between a "a gorilla psychic energy sword master of plaptoine the desert planet" and "Jedi Wookie light saber master of tatooine." the model may look similar and customers can connect the dots, but connecting the dots and pretending to be official Star wars universe will get you nuked, as it should.

Redbeard my friend, IMO and since you have been debating something that I cherish and even studied I'm addressing H.R. Giger legacy here...The Tyranids that you speak are not a question of opinion but in fact they are derivative and in some cases copies of Giger Aliens... I will not populate this thread with images because your old enough to know better... But for those less veterans amough us... check old nid hormagaunts extended heads and how GW ride that wave for many years maybe one decade or two?... check the FW Hive tyrants etc etc compare with aliens queens, concept fluff etc...
Besides Alien queens xenomorphs do have 6 limbs just google it. Do I have a problem with it? No. Its just a case that your perspective on this seems bent.... and now I'm going to be a total snob.. but comparing Giger to Jes goodwin is like comparing the sahara with a grain of sand.

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Broken or not the law is still the law. Dakka has a policy about making sure discussion of illegal activities is not allowed. You can not care all you want but ignoring the illegality of the topic you're discussing is usually frowned upon on dakka.

I like the third party bits makers but whether or not it is legal is undecided atm in the US.

I didn't think we were discussing illegal activities. As far as I'm aware, it's still legal to boycott a business whose practices you don't like.

Redbeard wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I think you should shop with your conscience, which is essentially what I said in my previous response. Your opinions are all fine and well, but you brought up intellectual property rights. If you bring up the law, you should be prepared to discuss the law.

Rights != The Law. We've done this one before. Laws actually can restrict rights. You brought up the law, I did not.

Actually, intellectual property rights are the law. Intellectual property rights in the United States derive from statutory authority, they are not natural, fundamental, or Constitutional rights.

biccat wrote:
Actually, intellectual property rights are the law. Intellectual property rights in the United States derive from statutory authority, they are not natural, fundamental, or Constitutional rights.

Which explains how they differ from country to country. Something that's legal on one side of a border may be illegal on the other side. The US Intellectual Property Rights system is a real mess right now. It's hard to take something as indicative of what should be fair when they issue patents on making stuff in your email clickable or the ability to make a purchase within an app.

Redbeard wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Broken or not the law is still the law. Dakka has a policy about making sure discussion of illegal activities is not allowed. You can not care all you want but ignoring the illegality of the topic you're discussing is usually frowned upon on dakka.

I like the third party bits makers but whether or not it is legal is undecided atm in the US.

I didn't think we were discussing illegal activities. As far as I'm aware, it's still legal to boycott a business whose practices you don't like.

Are you talking about GW because makes no sense to have double standard with companies that do or did the same damn thing... mind it's your prerogative, just don't say your attitude is not biased and has some kind of moral grounds.

Redbeard wrote:Which explains how they differ from country to country. Something that's legal on one side of a border may be illegal on the other side.

I'm not sure how this matters.

You and weeble are both US posters.

Redbeard wrote:The US Intellectual Property Rights system is a real mess right now. It's hard to take something as indicative of what should be fair when they issue patents on making stuff in your email clickable or the ability to make a purchase within an app.

Not really.

But this thread is about copyrights, not patent law. They're entirely separate areas.

biccat wrote:I'm not sure how this matters.

You and weeble are both US posters.

No, I'm not. I'm just here now.

But this thread is about copyrights, not patent law. They're entirely separate areas.

No, this thread is not about copyrights. This thread is about people's opinions. It's not a legal discussion thread. It's not a copyright thread. It's about what people think is right or wrong.

Once upon a time, people would discuss what they thought was appropriate, what was ideal, and strive to make the laws reflect that. (Or maybe I'm being idealistic here). But you (and some other posters) seem to insist on turning it around, making it about "this is the law, so this must be right". That's horrible logic, and history has shown, time and again, that just because something is a law does not make it either fair or just.

Laws change. Sometimes, laws from one country prove to be superior, and are adopted in other countries - which is why the comment about borders does matter. Because just because something is currently US law, doesn't mean it will still be US law in five, or ten, or fifty years. US laws on all sorts of IP issues have been gradually bent to accommodate private interests. Why is Mickey Mouse still protected? He should have been public domain years ago. You cannot point to the US IP system and say that it's not horribly flawed. So why do you want to discuss what it says, rather than what's reasonable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NAVARRO wrote:
Are you talking about GW because makes no sense to have double standard with companies that do or did the same damn thing... mind it's your prerogative, just don't say your attitude is not biased and has some kind of moral grounds.

It has nothing to do with bias, it has to do with reasonable differentiation. I'm more than happy to acknowledge that GW is heavily influenced by other designs and creators, but they always do something to make their stuff look like their stuff, rather than like what they're influenced by. I don't think you could show me a single tyranid model, from any era, and have me think that it's something Giger did. They made them different. Chapterhouse's Farseer fails that test. If I handed one to someone without the depth of knowledge of GWs range, they'd probably think it was a GW model. That's not a bias in favour of GW, it's simply the standard I choose to go by.

Redbeard wrote:No, this thread is not about copyrights.

Well, I just posted to point out where you were wrong. If you want to have a discussion of legal theory and IP rights, I'd be happy to do so elsewhere.

Redbeard wrote:
Once upon a time, people would discuss what they thought was appropriate, what was ideal, and strive to make the laws reflect that. (Or maybe I'm being idealistic here). But you (and some other posters) seem to insist on turning it around, making it about "this is the law, so this must be right". That's horrible logic, and history has shown, time and again, that just because something is a law does not make it either fair or just.

I've been in agreement with the majority of what you've posted. I really think you've nailed it with that statement.

Although I should clarify that my agreement is just my opinion, and not meant to be a representation of either IP or copyright law...

I like your tiptoe on calling some Heavly influenced and others morally wrong BOYCOTT Banana hormas, both minis and the concept art... FW Tyrants... just because you stick a weapon to a creature the creature remains the same... main attributes are exactly the same detailing... concepts the same... but yes you don't see them as GIGER work because all the brains at GW over these 35 years could not match 1% of the design genius Giger was.. they tried though and glad they did because what you fail to see is that if they did not tried we in our little corners of this world would NOT have these toys...
Heck they even tried dalek Live and let live the worst thing it can happen to this ridiculous small hobby is closed mentality, both in companies and communities.

Redbeard wrote: The existence of patent trolls, companies that exist simply to stifle innovation and hold it hostage is proof, to me at least, that IP laws, in general, are broken in this country.

Patent trolls boil my blood too, but the patents that they assert have to first be approved, and often re-approved. The first line of defense is the USPTO, which is sadly horridly overworked and underfunded. There's also the companies that are content to repeatedly pay the nuisance fees that fund the war chests that trolls use to continue litigation and patent prosecution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:Rights != The Law. We've done this one before. Laws actually can restrict rights. You brought up the law, I did not.

Fair enough.

In my own defense I must add that laws and rights are often, though not always, closely related issues; and the acronym "IP" is quite often used within the context of discussing intellectual property laws, rather than the more abstract concept of rights. But of course if we continue this line of discussion we could end up derailing this thread into an argument about natural rights and theories of governance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:Maybe if you made an attempt to understand the state of IP law in this country, you wouldn't be so fast to defend it. America's IP laws are ludicrous and horribly outdated in a digital world. So why should I want to discuss whether something is legal in a broken legal system?

In order to appreciate the intention behind the laws. No system is perfect, and things can indeed go awry, but on a fundamental level I believe that the purpose of intellectual property laws is to serve a very significant public good. The problem is that one must invest a measure of one's freedom in order to create a governing body. Without coercive authority, there is no government. At times, this can seem unfair, but the goal is to serve the interests of the group, though as I have said this can sometimes be at the expense of an individual.

Thus with patents you give an inventor a monopoly. That's serious business in a capitalist economy. The trade off is the "advancement of science and the useful arts" that occurs because inventors have an incentive to teach others how to make and use their inventions. I think that is a damn good thing. Now, there are problems with the patent system, but it is build on a solid bedrock of great ideas.

So too with copyright, as I have explained. It may not always seem fair, but the goal is to protect and encourage artistic expression. Thus the laws have to walk a razor's edge between protecting the work of one author and restricting the ability of other authors to express themselves. Ultimately, I think that copyright laws are more fair than you give them credit for, hence my continued efforts to encourage you and others to take an interest in these issues.

Redbeard... I'm afraid I just don't get your point.

It is awful and utterly unforgivable that a third party manufacturer made a miniature that was recognizably a female version of a GW Farseer; terrible to the point that you won't patronize their company.

And yet GW doing the same thing to Geiger's Aliens (and believe me, they did just that; the early Tyranids were clearly recognizable as Aliens) gets a shrug and a pass.

Is it bad when any party does it, or is it not bad when any party does it? If it's a matter of conscience there is no 'sometimes' about it.

If it is a matter of who is doing it that makes it good or bad it isn't a matter of conscience at all, but simply being judgemental without basis.

Vulcan wrote:Redbeard... I'm afraid I just don't get your point.

It is awful and utterly unforgivable that a third party manufacturer made a miniature that was recognizably a female version of a GW Farseer; terrible to the point that you won't patronize their company.

And yet GW doing the same thing to Geiger's Aliens (and believe me, they did just that; the early Tyranids were clearly recognizable as Aliens) gets a shrug and a pass.

Is it bad when any party does it, or is it not bad when any party does it? If it's a matter of conscience there is no 'sometimes' about it.

If it is a matter of who is doing it that makes it good or bad it isn't a matter of conscience at all, but simply being judgemental without basis.

I suppose readbeard (COMMUNIST! ITS RED! RED!!!! COMMIE!!!!) 's argument can be clarified. I'm not putting words into his mouth, but a player could still "conscietiously" purchase from GW by not buying anything tyranid related for the fact you pointed out.

Then of course if you DO go down this convoluted path, you have the problem that Dark Bucket (Darth vader) was ripped off to create the space marine helmets... then there's the fact that the chaos and the whole eight fold path was ripped off of that one author whose bloody name insists on eluding me.... then Tau are a ripoff of any number of asian transformer thingies. Imperial guard are by and large based off of real-world designs and hence not really protectable, and only GW's rendition of the two-headed eagle is really protected. I really only see orks as a caricaturization of what Tolkien already established, so there's not much there. What, egyptian skeletons and sphynx statues? Carrying on this path gets ridiculous because it gets too easy to a.) derail this thread into CHS vs GWS version 362 and b.) its all opinion anyway
.... Anyway, that leaves the question, what exactly can be bought conscientiously from GW? Back where we started, which is all just baseless opinion anyway.

I think if it wasn't for 3rd party companies then half the units in every codex would still be unavailable cause GW would have no motivation to actually release what players want. Theres a reason why monopolies suck. Competition drives everyone to improve their products which is good for us consumers.

I think even if GW provided all the models required for a codex, it would still be fine for other companies to produce alternatives.

Obviously it's easier to sell models for which an unsatisfied demand exists -- e.g. female Farseer, Spore Pod, etc.

poda_t wrote:then there's the fact that the chaos and the whole eight fold path was ripped off of that one author whose bloody name insists on eluding me....

Michael Moorcock.

This thread is about the aftermarket being parasites. AFAIK parasite is not a legal category, so all this legal discussion is off topic. BTW not even GW lawyers, after 1.5 years in a lawsuit, could provide as much as a formally correct charge of what Chapterhouse could have possibly done wrong, so GW's omnipotency claims couldn't stand their confrontation with the real world.

on the legal standpoint: It's legal, at least until a contrary precedent is set.

On the moral standpoint: they aren't directly lifting GW designs (they're not recasting) they're making designs inspired by GW artwork and based on GWs concepts. I'm perfectly ok with this, especially in light of GW blatantly doing the same thing (2nd edition hormagaunts, 3rd edition Hive Tyrant, Sentinel Powerlifter, Sly Marbo...)

NAVARRO wrote:
Heck they even tried dalek

The Daleks, Cybermen and all of the other Dr Who figures they did were ALL licenced products relating to the DR Who Role playing game they also published and they didn't pretend they were anything else. A slightly different matter. GW got to publish their own games after first publishing the works of others. They got publishing rights in the UK & Australia (and probably the ROW outisde US) for Dungeons and Dragons, Call of Cthulhu, and a bunch of other rpgs, then they got publishing rights to "local" products like Judge Dredd, Dr Who, and so on.

The old banana-head hormagaunts were very Giger, as was the head design of that metal Hive Tyrant. Not identical, but only the one-eyed* would fail to see where the inspiration was drawn from for it. The rippers are also rather inspired by chestbursters, imo.


* by one-eyed, I mean the fannishly blind to anything-but-GW people (none so blind as those who will not see). In the kingdom of the blind, that one eyed man is just as blind.

Facehuggers are closer to necromunda rippers, check it out

Facehuggers pre-date necromunda.

They can't be inspired by something that came AFTER them and used them for inspiration.

chromedog wrote:Facehuggers pre-date necromunda.

They can't be inspired by something that came AFTER them and used them for inspiration.

I knowz

Yes they are parasites but GW is a victim of its own success. Having a popular gaming system that 3rd party companies have to produce bits goodies for is self induced.

How hard would it be for no kidding GW to run a "Spiky bits concept" right off their website? In light of the automated codex... not hard. I'm sure the start up costs would be less than the endless legal proceedings.

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:
Actually, intellectual property rights are the law. Intellectual property rights in the United States derive from statutory authority, they are not natural, fundamental, or Constitutional rights.

Which explains how they differ from country to country. Something that's legal on one side of a border may be illegal on the other side. The US Intellectual Property Rights system is a real mess right now. It's hard to take something as indicative of what should be fair when they issue patents on making stuff in your email clickable or the ability to make a purchase within an app.

Could you actually explain specifically what you feel is wrong with the current US IP system? You are throwing out a lot of generic stuff here.

All legal issues aside, I fully support third party manufactures. In the case of bits, GW created the monster of customizing models/armies by shoving the concept of THE HOBBY down everyone's throats, then removed 90% of the support for doing so unless you have huge cash reserves to buy GW kits just to suck bits from them or are good at scratch building, which most of us are not. In the case of conversion kits or full-blown knockoffs of GW units, it has pushed GW to be much more timely in the manner in which they release models, with rumors of them taking that concept even further in the future. The only drawback that I've seen is possibly the information blackout for releases, which could as be attributed to the deal they have for The Hobbit.

As GW keeps raising their prices, the demand for third-party stuff is only going to grow and I hope that at some point, GW realizes that business is adapt or die, not cease and desist.

Interestingly, I've noticed that a couple of 3rd party companies are making vehicles which are based off of other concepts, but are obviously designed with use for 40k in mind. Is this being done with a mind to protecting them from litigation from GW in the future?

For example, the forthcoming 'Gothic tank' from Maxmini, copied from the ugliest real-world tank ever made bar none:


And from Puppetswar.com, yes it is for Orcs but it is also copied from a 'real world' aircraft (perhaps some aircraft enthusiast will know the name?)


Funny that both of these models have come out in short order, are they aware of something that we are not, or are they just making their lives easier in the future?

Maelstrom808 wrote:
As GW keeps raising their prices, the demand for third-party stuff is only going to grow

Exactly, it really boils down to this, the markets in motion and thats not something GW can controll... Many people say they have a monopoly and I believe GW may also think a bit that way but the truth is they do not and wargaming interest is growing because of the net and other things GW refuses to be a part of... so in that sense I would describe the bitz makers and other companies as alternative viable options... On salutte, the biggest ever, you could see that our hobby is growing... yet GW sales are errrr not ...not because the other companies are parasites but because they are what the market needs and wants. I love GW past genious, not much the present and kind of indiferent of its future ( I think they are on a deadend, quality & concepts wise decreasing, they may even go prepainted bendy plastics from the looks of it).
More Important than quantity is the heart and love you see on a mini in all steps of the way from casting to sculpting and for years now at GW ( apart from space hulk release) its all a mesh of faceless minis with no charisma. People do need to have at least one special mini on their GW armies and thats why they resort to customizing with those special bitz from others but THEY PLAY AND COLLECT GW full ARMIES... so snifing at one mini or bitz from others its kind of a skewed prespective.

If peole want diversity and charisma and GW does not deliver then its a open door for a niche small biz to grow... many do evolve into big biz you have plenty of examples.