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.
2014/02/10 23:00:10
Subject: What are the opinions on eBay, Recasts, and third party models?
cvtuttle wrote: Amazing to me how people attempt to justify theft with the recasts. It's very black and white to me. *shrug*
It amazes me how many people try to justify stealing from a customer base because they are loyal, well my loyalty has been burned, also i am not stealing anything, its the recasters that are the ones stealing, i am buying from them and while it may be morally wrong, so is treating your customers and fanbase like total crap.
Now if it were just me i can understand, but its not, its a whole lot of people who feel the same way, that tells me that there is something deeply wrong with the policies of GW.
On the other side of the fence however I buy Forge world full price from them, they are not gauging me for £30 for 10 hammerers that look worse than the avatars of war minis and they cost alot less!
This is such an utterly ridiculous argument. I used to interview employees who stole from the company I worked at. There is literally a phase of the interview called "The Justification Phase". You basically just hit every point of that in this discussion. Theft has nothing to do with the points you made... This isn't food or shelter. You are talking about a luxury item. You are blaming the companies behavior and prices for your illicit actions.
Here are similar statements I used to hear...
"I deserved those items I stole because they don't pay me enough."
"Other people are doing it, so it's ok if I do it too."
"I bought all this other stuff, so it's ok that I took this one item."
Pretty much taken right from the training manual:
In employee theft cases, the guilty suspect may place blame for his behavior on such factors as inadequate income, poor security measures by the employer, or someone else who did not do his job (left the money out or left the money drawer unlocked). The suspect may even justify his behavior by pointing out that other employees are engaged in similar activities. In burglary cases, the suspect may justify his theft by blaming unusual family expenses, desperate circumstances (e.g., no job but a family to support), or a friend for suggesting the idea.
You know, it's pretty self-defeating to counter one ridiculous argument with another ridiculous argument.
Why are you comparing copyright violations to physical theft as if they're the same thing? When copyright is violated by illegal copies, the original copyright holder does not lose any physical items. At worst, they lose the potential for an additional sale. That is absolutely not the same as having their inventory stolen. When some dude in China is copying GW models, the equivalent stock does not just vanish from a warehouse in Lenton.
This is the same line of thinking that allows music and film distributors to sue infringers for obscene amounts of cash, based on the fallacy that every potential sale is a lost sale. Not everyone who acquires a bootleg copy of an item ever had the intention to purchase an original copy at full price. Formosa could have argued that he would have never have bought brand new products from GW, and only made purchases because the less-savoury alternative was available. In that case GW actually lost nothing, as there was never a potential sale. Obviously there's no way to prove this, but it does show the key difference between theft and copyright infringement.
I already posted earlier in the thread to say that I have purchased recasts specifically to acquire models that are no longer in production. How does this qualify as theft, if it's impossible to acquire these items as new?
The heart of the matter is that it's impossible to prove how much damage copyright infringement does. The owner may be losing out on 100% of those sales, it may as low as 1%. The truth is that no one can possibly know.
True theft is a purely selfish crime I don't think anyone can justify without serious mental gymnastics. Copyright infringement is a whole other area filled with unknowns, grey areas and lots of guesswork. Please don't fall into the trap of compromising your stance by making faulty comparisons or over-simplifying matters.
"Owners of copyright in literary, dramatic and musical works have the exclusive right to: • copy their work (for example, by photocopying it, copying it by hand, reciting it onto an audio device or digital scanning); • publish their work; • in the case of computer programs, rent copies to the public in certain circumstances;"
"Owners of copyright in artistic works have the exclusive right in relation to the first three activities listed above."
"There are no general exemptions from copyright laws for non-profit organisations or for private or domestic use."
In short its all to do with sales not owning. Thats why they had a huge thing about Internet piracy because people could pirate movies for themselves but not share it, but internet piracy laws have changed so you get three warnings if you pirate a movie or song etc then you get fined a bit etc. But its not really enforced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 23:10:08
2014/02/10 23:23:28
Subject: Re:What are the opinions on eBay, Recasts, and third party models?
Nowadays the vast majority of my miniature purchases seem to be divided roughly 50/50 between my FLGS and snagging Ebay deals. Occasionally someone I know will have something I'm interested up for selling/trading, too, and I'm fairly certain that this sort of thing (coupled with more vodka than should ever be put into anyone's drink) is how I went from owning 2 dreadnoughts to 8. Either that or they reproduced. But I don't want to think about that.
I have not, to my knowledge, purchased a recast of anything. Speaking of...
Peregrine wrote: Well yeah, there's always an endless horde of sociopaths who want to turn their desire to get games/movies/whatever without paying for them into some kind of moral high ground. That doesn't make them right.
Peregrine wrote: No, Peregrine is not a lawyer, and is not arguing based on any kind of professional knowledge of IP law. In fact, Peregrine's position is that recasting and purchasing recasts is morally wrong even if you can find some kind of legal loophole that allows it.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Peregrine's thoughts on the moral aspect here, though I... might not be the best person to ask in the first place. GW is well within its legal right to price items too high for a lot of--if not the majority of--people. At least as far as things go in the U.S. people are likewise well within their legal and moral right to vote with their wallets and collectively refuse to buy enough of X item for GW to make a profit from it (thus forcing their hand in a different direction). That's not where the majority of the economic votes have gone, apparently (and despite what looking at the internet might make one infer), and GW feels no need to make their products more affordable. And there's no law that I am aware of that will force them to do so. Furthermore, they're selling toy soldiers, not food or water. Nobody is dying because of GW prices barring the occurrence of some sort of bizarre scenario out of a B-movie comedy. So my guess would be that while their high pricing is certainly not morally 'right,' it's not really 'wrong,' either. Love of toy soldiers is not like the biological need for water--as much as I hate to admit it.
That being said if I came across a top-quality source of recasts and if I was 100% sure I could get away with buying them I would do it in a heartbeat. And there are worse things yet I would do in a heartbeat if I was so sure that no form of retribution would come my way, damned be the injured parties. But my destructive entitlement is not morally 'right' in any way, nor is anyone else's (quite the contrary--even I understand that).
Come to think of it, is this not why we need laws in the first place?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 23:25:21
"Owners of copyright in literary, dramatic and musical works have the exclusive right to:
• copy their work (for example, by photocopying it, copying it by hand, reciting it onto an
audio device or digital scanning);
• publish their work;
• in the case of computer programs, rent copies to the public in certain circumstances;"
"Owners of copyright in artistic works have the exclusive right in relation to the first three
activities listed above."
"There are no general exemptions from copyright laws for non-profit organisations or for
private or domestic use."
In short its all to do with sales not owning. Thats why they had a huge thing about Internet piracy because people could pirate movies for themselves but not share it, but internet piracy laws have changed so you get three warnings if you pirate a movie or song etc then you get fined a bit etc. But its not really enforced.
1. You just did a bait-n-switch on me.
We are not discussing the issue of buying or owning counterfeit goods.
We are discussing the act of making copies of a copyrighted item, and whether the relevant law allows such a copying if it is done for personal non-profit use. Look up to recap.
2. I don't think that article says what you think it says.
Could you please quote the relevant part that states that; "For counterfeit goods its only illegal to manifacture or sell them not own them"?
Could you also quote the part that addresses the existing copy-right laws, and isn't about the new additions concerning changes to the powers given to various authorities?
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
"Owners of copyright in literary, dramatic and musical works have the exclusive right to:
• copy their work (for example, by photocopying it, copying it by hand, reciting it onto an
audio device or digital scanning);
• publish their work;
• in the case of computer programs, rent copies to the public in certain circumstances;"
"Owners of copyright in artistic works have the exclusive right in relation to the first three
activities listed above."
"There are no general exemptions from copyright laws for non-profit organisations or for
private or domestic use."
In short its all to do with sales not owning. Thats why they had a huge thing about Internet piracy because people could pirate movies for themselves but not share it, but internet piracy laws have changed so you get three warnings if you pirate a movie or song etc then you get fined a bit etc. But its not really enforced.
1. You just did a bait-n-switch on me.
We are not discussing the issue of buying or owning counterfeit goods.
We are discussing the act of making copies of a copyrighted item, and whether the relevant law allows such a copying if it is done for personal non-profit use. Look up to recap.
2. I don't think that article says what you think it says.
Could you please quote the relevant part that states that; "For counterfeit goods its only illegal to manifacture or sell them not own them"?
Could you also quote the part that addresses the existing copy-right laws, and isn't about the new additions concerning changes to the powers given to various authorities?
No, law is a pain to go through, but its not illegal to have them here, only to sell or reproduce. This is the case in most of the world.
It covers world not just NZ. But yea buying and owning them is not illegal. Im not searching for hours to prove to a random the laws of the country I live in.
2014/02/10 23:44:55
Subject: Re:What are the opinions on eBay, Recasts, and third party models?
It covers world not just NZ. But yea buying and owning them is not illegal. Im not searching for hours to prove to a random the laws of the country I live in.
Again, you are persisting in barking up the wrong tree.
You have already been made aware that you are addressing a separate and different issue than the one being discussed.
I can only assume you are doing so because you realize that your position concerning the relevant issue under discussion is completely untenable, and that you have a problem admitting this fact.
This exchange is over.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
It covers world not just NZ. But yea buying and owning them is not illegal. Im not searching for hours to prove to a random the laws of the country I live in.
Again, you are persisting in barking up the wrong tree.
You have already been made aware that you are addressing a separate and different issue than the one being discussed.
I can only assume you are doing so because you realize that your position concerning the relevant issue under discussion is completely untenable, and that you have a problem admitting this fact.
This exchange is over.
But im right, If i have a dvd i purchased legitimately, I can copy it 50 times and store it on my computer. Its a crime once I share those files for profit or non profit. Thats the law here. The law is I cannot distribute copyrighted goods illigetimately. I can however keep them for myself. I can photo copy a book I purchased for myself a million times and its only illegal when I give it away or sell it. Same with anything copyrighted. Same with recasts, it comes under the same law.
2014/02/11 00:27:04
Subject: What are the opinions on eBay, Recasts, and third party models?
cvtuttle wrote: Amazing to me how people attempt to justify theft with the recasts. It's very black and white to me. *shrug*
It amazes me how many people try to justify stealing from a customer base because they are loyal, well my loyalty has been burned, also i am not stealing anything, its the recasters that are the ones stealing, i am buying from them and while it may be morally wrong, so is treating your customers and fanbase like total crap.
Now if it were just me i can understand, but its not, its a whole lot of people who feel the same way, that tells me that there is something deeply wrong with the policies of GW.
On the other side of the fence however I buy Forge world full price from them, they are not gauging me for £30 for 10 hammerers that look worse than the avatars of war minis and they cost alot less!
This is such an utterly ridiculous argument. I used to interview employees who stole from the company I worked at. There is literally a phase of the interview called "The Justification Phase". You basically just hit every point of that in this discussion. Theft has nothing to do with the points you made... This isn't food or shelter. You are talking about a luxury item. You are blaming the companies behavior and prices for your illicit actions.
Here are similar statements I used to hear...
"I deserved those items I stole because they don't pay me enough."
"Other people are doing it, so it's ok if I do it too."
"I bought all this other stuff, so it's ok that I took this one item."
Pretty much taken right from the training manual:
In employee theft cases, the guilty suspect may place blame for his behavior on such factors as inadequate income, poor security measures by the employer, or someone else who did not do his job (left the money out or left the money drawer unlocked). The suspect may even justify his behavior by pointing out that other employees are engaged in similar activities. In burglary cases, the suspect may justify his theft by blaming unusual family expenses, desperate circumstances (e.g., no job but a family to support), or a friend for suggesting the idea.
You know, it's pretty self-defeating to counter one ridiculous argument with another ridiculous argument.
Why are you comparing copyright violations to physical theft as if they're the same thing? When copyright is violated by illegal copies, the original copyright holder does not lose any physical items. At worst, they lose the potential for an additional sale. That is absolutely not the same as having their inventory stolen. When some dude in China is copying GW models, the equivalent stock does not just vanish from a warehouse in Lenton.
This is the same line of thinking that allows music and film distributors to sue infringers for obscene amounts of cash, based on the fallacy that every potential sale is a lost sale. Not everyone who acquires a bootleg copy of an item ever had the intention to purchase an original copy at full price. Formosa could have argued that he would have never have bought brand new products from GW, and only made purchases because the less-savoury alternative was available. In that case GW actually lost nothing, as there was never a potential sale. Obviously there's no way to prove this, but it does show the key difference between theft and copyright infringement.
I already posted earlier in the thread to say that I have purchased recasts specifically to acquire models that are no longer in production. How does this qualify as theft, if it's impossible to acquire these items as new?
The heart of the matter is that it's impossible to prove how much damage copyright infringement does. The owner may be losing out on 100% of those sales, it may as low as 1%. The truth is that no one can possibly know.
True theft is a purely selfish crime I don't think anyone can justify without serious mental gymnastics. Copyright infringement is a whole other area filled with unknowns, grey areas and lots of guesswork. Please don't fall into the trap of compromising your stance by making faulty comparisons or over-simplifying matters.
"As low as 1%"
So there is a loss....
"I already posted earlier in the thread to say that I have purchased recasts specifically to acquire models that are no longer in production. How does this qualify as theft, if it's impossible to acquire these items as new? "
This is actually the one area I will agree with you on. There is NO WAY for you to acquire the item - hence zero loss to the company since they do not sell it. *shrug*. Not sure I would argue against that.
Why are we quoting an entire thread to reply? Come on. I, for one, think it was stupid of G'dub to pull out of tourney support. They were the main deterant to third party models. Now that's gone.
DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+ Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0
QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2 One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners
2014/02/26 17:39:56
Subject: What are the opinions on eBay, Recasts, and third party models?
I have no problem buying off of ebay. At some point the people selling on ebay bought their models either directly from GW, or in some instances from a LGS and are selling models they no longer use, or decided not to assemble/use on ebay.
Third party models, often there are options that GW does not supply for models, and third party sources tend to notice this and make conversion"pieces that "might be usable" as that item. Some third party sites make models that might look like something from 40k / fantasy lore that has no rules or models. Some third party sites make things that could be used in place of models that are produced and have rules by GW.
I have no issue buying third party models, when I purchase them they are often bitz that GW doesn't make for a kit GW does make, which I have bought and want the bits to add onto the GW kit. I was going to scratch build some bit for that GW model/kit anyways, and If I see a third party vendor that has made that thing I was going to attempt to make I would rather spend the $ for it, then the time making it from scratch usually.
Recasts. Interesting, for many people in the gaming community one of the things you may not know is GW used to not always make new sculpts for models and would recast their old models, cut them up, and resculpt only part of the new model combined with parts of old recasts to make new models. This was very prevalent in the first 3 editions of models, starting when fantasy/40k models were made by either citadel, games workshop, or there was a third party I want to say marauder. From 2nd edition on all the models were solely made by games/workshop which I believe bought out citadel and marauder, and joined them all together under their company. Anyways thats off topic so lets go back.
GW used to recast its own models to make "new" models to sell at full price. Consider that when you are hating on recasters and talking about people not getting their due pay etc.
That said GW no longer does this and hasn't been doing it for a few editions, I do not like buying recasts. I think recasts are wrong to use, and are a detriment to the hobby. Many recasters sell only recasts, so they are taking money from the people that are moving the game forward. I include the parent company of GW, FW, and actually 3rd party vendors as all the people moving the game forward. Even 3rd party vendors who are supplying models/bits that are outside of what GW supplies in their model line are affecting the future of these games, as they become known and GW is aware of them and moves to either make these models themselves, something that they very well may not have done.
Its also worth reminding GWs development, and probably FW too is based on Models then rules. So if a third party is supplying interesting models, and GW takes notice, and they consider revamping or updating their model range, they will also be looking at revamping or updating rules for things that have been touched on in the future.
2014/02/26 18:16:48
Subject: What are the opinions on eBay, Recasts, and third party models?
I admit to skipping a few pages of back and forth so if this has already been said sorry.
Since the almighty GW has decided that they don't want tournament play to be a thing and it's just a beer and pretzel game there isn't any real reason to buy strictly GW products. I bought officail models to satisfy tournament rules, but now I am looking to other companies for cheaper options.
Waaagghhhh!!!!!!!!
2014/02/26 21:25:50
Subject: What are the opinions on eBay, Recasts, and third party models?
The only recast stuff I would be even remotely ok with buying would be OOP models, and they would have to be fairly cheap/I wouldn't know they were recasts when buying. I dont go looking for them but if I got some cheap models and found a few were recasts I wouldnt be too upset other than false advertising. If they were selling at full price and claiming they were legitimate I would be reporting them however legal way is necessary though. The way I see it, if GW doesn't sell the models that I bought anymore, its not like they lost a sale. If they wanted that sale, they should have put the model back in production. Definitely would not buy a current kit that had been recast though.
As for used, I can't see how anyone would have issues with that morally. GW doesn't own the model after you buy it. You can build it, glue it to your door, drop it into your car's gas tank, give it to the dog as a chew toy, sell it, melt it for metal, whatever. Its yours to keep, something video game companies seem to have a hard time grasping. I can understand people wanting to assemble kits themselves though, that makes perfect sense.
As for 3rd party, I have no issue. They usually make better products than GW, sell for a better price, or both. Since I'm pretty much done with 40k gamewise, I don't really care if I buy official GW models or not. I'm just going to paint them and hope that the rules get better someday, so its not like I'm worried about not being able to play in official GW events or anything.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 21:51:23
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
609th Kharkovian 2000pts
Deathwatch 2000pts
Sick Marines 1500pts
Spikey Marines 2000pts
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.000
Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 
Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 
Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 
Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 
Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 
Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 
Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 
BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 
IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 
RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 
