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.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW is a company. They are not a hobby in and of themselves.

They are a sect of the scale model and tabletop wargames hobbies.

GW is a hobby. It means you collect Warhammer/Warhammer 40k/Lord of the Rings. Please don't try to definie my and my friend's hobbies by lumping us in with the worst kind of neckbeards.

This reeks of elitism. Just because you don't want to be associated with tabletop gaming doesn't mean gak. You play a tabletop game of 28mm models. That is tabletop gaming. GW is a company not a hobby. Unless your hobby is you running GW. Then it could be a hobby.

That is interesting. If the Hobby is WHFB/40k/LoTR, then do these GW Hobby Elitists look down on Specialist Games? Because I love and enjoy Blood Bowl, that means I'm not part of the Hobby's embrace? Did my clean-shaven neck just spout a giant beard?

What about Warhammer Historicals? Written by GW employees, published by GW... does it pass the NO-NECKBEARD test?

How do the GW Hobby Elitists feel about the games that the authors of the "Big Three" (I miss how the third was Epic, and not LotR, btw) have authored outside of Games Workshop? Does the "GW" branding, to them, somehow mean automatic quality and infallible rules and decisions? But as soon as Rick Priestley writes Hail Caesar or Bolt Action, or Andy Chambers writes Dust Warfare or Starship Troopers, or Alessio Cavatore writes Kings of War or Warpath... those are all giant neckbeardy turdburglars with an inferior product and inferior players?

And another thing, just because you play a GW game doesn't mean you have to use GW models. Plenty of people play WFB and use Mantic models or others that they've found.

Wildly off topic, but the elitism really pissed me off.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Really? It's not really any different than all the people that would like to see big oil companies, Microsoft, Apple, (basically any big business that is seen as ripping it's customers off) do poorly. Also, if that is actually killing Games Workshop, then they failed to adapt. They have massive amounts of resources (for the world TTWG) and dominant market visibilty, if they can't compete, I'm not going to shed a tear over them.

...this is the crux of the issue. GW's intellectual copyright is being stolen. It has nothing to do with competition. If I steal tvs from a shop, and sell them next door at a cut down price, doesn't mean that shop has failed commercially.

 Testify wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Really? It's not really any different than all the people that would like to see big oil companies, Microsoft, Apple, (basically any big business that is seen as ripping it's customers off) do poorly. Also, if that is actually killing Games Workshop, then they failed to adapt. They have massive amounts of resources (for the world TTWG) and dominant market visibilty, if they can't compete, I'm not going to shed a tear over them.

...this is the crux of the issue. GW's intellectual copyright is being stolen. It has nothing to do with competition. If I steal tvs from a shop, and sell them next door at a cut down price, doesn't mean that shop has failed commercially.

IP theft is not anything close to physical property theft. You all need to let that go.

This is copying something and selling the copy, not taking product off the shelf without paying for it.

GW isn't in any kind of bind because of these fairly obscure recasters.

How many GW customers who don't lurk endlessly on forums even know about recasting as a possibilty, let alone a reality?

The online community makes up a very small percentage of GW's customers, and within that online community those who know of recasting are an even smaller percentage, and those who BUY recasts are yet a smaller percentage of that. It is negligible.

And I should add that so far GW has shown very little ability to prove ownership of damn near anything that they claim to.

judgedoug wrote:
So you believe that if I have $10, and I will either spend $10 on recast Terminator heads or Scibor heads, or $10 on some sandwiches... then if I spend that $10 on recast Terminator or Scibor heads, I have actively participated in the killing of the hobby of all miniatures/tabletop gaming.

I don't understand this post, please rephrase it.

Aerethan wrote:
This reeks of elitism. Just because you don't want to be associated with tabletop gaming doesn't mean gak. You play a tabletop game of 28mm models. That is tabletop gaming. GW is a company not a hobby. Unless your hobby is you running GW. Then it could be a hobby.

If you play any video game, it lumps you in with "gamers" in general, whether you like it or not. Your elitist attitude that GW players somehow are never neckbeards as well is appalling.

And me buying from another company isn't killing wargaming by any stretch of the imagination. But then your definition of "hobby" is GW, so what you are saying is that my recasts are killing GW, a company that isn't exactly dying(yet). And if/when GW dies, it 100% won't be from the black market of toy soldiers. It will be from their inability to sustain a viable business plan, or to even implement a viable business plan to begin with.

Actually if someone played The Sims or My Little Pony on their Wii then no, I wouldn't classify them as a gamer. Similarly playing 40k doesn't mean you're in the same catagory as people who player other games which, in the UK at least, are very obscure. If you try to define my hobby again I will simply ignore that part of your post.

It's touching that you care so much about GW's business plan. Of course, you are not a part of their management, so you wouldn't know that. A company that size to NOT have a plan would be very very odd.

I think this boils down to you not wanting to pay full price for something you shouldn't have to. Except GW isn't like Apple or Nokia, if they go out of business there isn't a competator you can buy from - the hobby is dead.

 cormadepanda wrote:
If GW cant compete with CHINA, then CHINA is my new supplier.

This reminds me of the bit from the Powerthrist videos: "If God gives you lemons, you find a new God." (Needs more allcaps, but I can't stand writing in those.)

 Testify wrote:

If you try to define my hobby again I will simply ignore that part of your post.

Interesting, given that you tried to define "everyone's" hobby for them.

 Aerethan wrote:


And I should add that so far GW has shown very little ability to prove ownership of damn near anything that they claim to.

GW has had extremely easy time proving ownership of thier copyrights, which is exactly what is what is being infringed upon and why the ebay stores and websites do get shut down.

So they do claim ownership of thier copyrights and can prove they own them.

Except GW isn't like Apple or Nokia, if they go out of business there isn't a competator you can buy from - the hobby is dead.

That is just ignorance. If GW up and died tomorrow, I'd still play WFB with my wife and local group. You think if they go away that the game does? No. It would get picked up by another company and continued, or the fans would do it themselves and use other companies models.
GW isn't the only company that makes 28mm models, just like Apple isn't the only company that makes smart phones. Do the other products look different? Yes, but they function pretty much the same, sometimes better even.

Quit calling it YOUR hobby. You play wargames on a tabletop, therefore you are a tabletop wargamer. That isn't specific to you and your little group of friends.

The only thing actually unique to GW are the game rules, which are patented and can't be done elsewhere really. Models are models. There isn't some law that says WFB must be played with GW models. Plenty of people play Warhammer without using GW models.

nkelsch wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


And I should add that so far GW has shown very little ability to prove ownership of damn near anything that they claim to.

GW has had extremely easy time proving ownership of thier copyrights, which is exactly what is what is being infringed upon and why the ebay stores and websites do get shut down.

So they do claim ownership of thier copyrights and can prove they own them.

GW is very good at filing C&D letters. They are currently getting destroyed in court because they overreached on their 'copyrights' (blood drops, halberds, etc) and apparently have failed to ever register any of the trademarks they said they did.

nkelsch wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


And I should add that so far GW has shown very little ability to prove ownership of damn near anything that they claim to.

GW has had extremely easy time proving ownership of thier copyrights, which is exactly what is what is being infringed upon and why the ebay stores and websites do get shut down.

So they do claim ownership of thier copyrights and can prove they own them.

No. Those sites close because it is easier to open up under a new name than get sued. C&D's don't mean gak as far as proof of ownership.

If GW has such an easy time proving ownership of copyrights, then why is the CHS case so insanely favored against them, and they didn't prove ownership of the vast majority of items they claimed to own.

Just because a store backs down to avoid legal action doesn't mean GW was right. It means the other party determined that it wasn't financially worth fighting over, and GW hedges their bets on that happening every time, and then they gak themselves when a company actually fights back.

 Testify wrote:
GW's intellectual copyright is being stolen.

>> GW's Intellectual Copyright is being stolen
>> Intellectual copyright
>> Copyright being stolen.

Is...is anyone else seeing this? because I just facepalmed so hard I think I fractured something.

As for GW being a hobby...No. I don't spend my evening Games Workshopping, just like when I paint I don't spend time Humbrolling or Vallejoing, and when I read I don't go Pratchetting. GW produces supplies to be used in various aspects of the Tabletop Wargaming hobby. Don't want to be associated with the rest of the wargamers? Tough - if you Read, you're in the same group as other people who enjoy Reading. If you Paint, you're in the same group as the other people who enjoy Painting. You don't get a choice about who shares your hobby

nkelsch wrote:

GW has had extremely easy time proving ownership of thier copyrights, which is exactly what is what is being infringed upon and why the ebay stores and websites do get shut down.

So they do claim ownership of thier copyrights and can prove they own them.

You haven't been keeping up with the Chapterhouse situation have you?

"I think this boils down to you not wanting to pay full price for something you shouldn't have to. Except GW isn't like Apple or Nokia, if they go out of business there isn't a competator you can buy from - the hobby is dead."

Only if the "hobby" is only GW, and I think you will find very few people only view GW as the "hobby".

 Testify wrote:
Similarly playing 40k doesn't mean you're in the same catagory as people who player other games which, in the UK at least, are very obscure. If you try to define my hobby again I will simply ignore that part of your post.

Hahaha! You're very right. I'm not just a car driver, I drive a 6th gen Camaro. It's not a car, it's a Camaro. I will simply ignore anyone who tries to define me as a (barf) CAR driver. Camaro's most certaintly do not share any of the same characteristics as any other car. *facepalm*

Unbelievable. Sorry, holmes, you play tabletop wargames. 40k is a tabletop wargame, just like DBM or Hail Caesar or any other game that uses little toy soldiers and dice and a set of rules that govern how they move about.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charax wrote:
As for GW being a hobby...No. I don't spend my evening Games Workshopping, just like when I paint I don't spend time Humbrolling or Vallejoing, and when I read I don't go Pratchetting. GW produces supplies to be used in various aspects of the Tabletop Wargaming hobby. Don't want to be associated with the rest of the wargamers? Tough - if you Read, you're in the same group as other people who enjoy Reading. If you Paint, you're in the same group as the other people who enjoy Gaming. You don't get a choice about who shares your hobby

Dude don't lump MY hobby in like that! Some evenings I like to do some GamesWorkshopHobbyCitadelPainting on my Tomb Kings, but I'll mix it up and then do some TheArmyPainterBasing on 'em. Then I'll use them in during some ManticKingsOfWaring on Saturday. It gets really awkward switching between different hobbies when I'm using Citadel paints and the Army Painter paints on a Mantic model, but I can make it work.

But it's DEFINITELY NOT Tabletop Wargaming like with all those neckbeards oh no indeedy doodly

 Aerethan wrote:

Except GW isn't like Apple or Nokia, if they go out of business there isn't a competator you can buy from - the hobby is dead.

That is just ignorance. If GW up and died tomorrow, I'd still play WFB with my wife and local group. You think if they go away that the game does? No. It would get picked up by another company and continued, or the fans would do it themselves and use other companies models.
GW isn't the only company that makes 28mm models, just like Apple isn't the only company that makes smart phones. Do the other products look different? Yes, but they function pretty much the same, sometimes better even.

Quit calling it YOUR hobby. You play wargames on a tabletop, therefore you are a tabletop wargamer. That isn't specific to you and your little group of friends.

The only thing actually unique to GW are the game rules, which are patented and can't be done elsewhere really. Models are models. There isn't some law that says WFB must be played with GW models. Plenty of people play Warhammer without using GW models.

The intellectual copyright would be dead. There would be no new "Imperial Guard codex" as we know it. Say goodbye to Space Marines, say hello to "The United Space Trooper Core". Yeah, doesn't quite fit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:

Hahaha! You're very right. I'm not just a car driver, I drive a 6th gen Camaro. It's not a car, it's a Camaro. I will simply ignore anyone who tries to define me as a (barf) CAR driver. Camaro's most certaintly do not share any of the same characteristics as any other car. *facepalm*

Good metaphor. You drive a car, does that mean you're interested in engines and horsepower and torque and motor racing?

Please stop using the phrase "Intellectual Copyright", it makes you look bad. It's Intellectual Property or Copyright, pick one

 Testify wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

Except GW isn't like Apple or Nokia, if they go out of business there isn't a competator you can buy from - the hobby is dead.

That is just ignorance. If GW up and died tomorrow, I'd still play WFB with my wife and local group. You think if they go away that the game does? No. It would get picked up by another company and continued, or the fans would do it themselves and use other companies models.
GW isn't the only company that makes 28mm models, just like Apple isn't the only company that makes smart phones. Do the other products look different? Yes, but they function pretty much the same, sometimes better even.

Quit calling it YOUR hobby. You play wargames on a tabletop, therefore you are a tabletop wargamer. That isn't specific to you and your little group of friends.

The only thing actually unique to GW are the game rules, which are patented and can't be done elsewhere really. Models are models. There isn't some law that says WFB must be played with GW models. Plenty of people play Warhammer without using GW models.

The intellectual copyright would be dead. There would be no new "Imperial Guard codex" as we know it. Say goodbye to Space Marines, say hello to "The United Space Trooper Core". Yeah, doesn't quite fit.

The IP most certainly wouldn't be dead. It would be bought by someone else and products would eventually be continued to be developed. And if GW as a company died, whoever bought the rights would probably hire most of the GW staff to continue it.

Also, companies don't die that often anymore(at least not ones the size of GW). Most of the time they are bought out and restructured within their markets. Which would probably work out well for the customers at this point.

And the metaphor carries weight. You like warhammer, therefore you like some manner of 28mm models, and some manner of tabletop games, therefore you are part of the tabletop games hobby.

No one is part of the Ford hobby, yet metric tons of people are vehicle enthusiasts or hobbyists.

Charax wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

GW has had extremely easy time proving ownership of thier copyrights, which is exactly what is what is being infringed upon and why the ebay stores and websites do get shut down.

So they do claim ownership of thier copyrights and can prove they own them.

You haven't been keeping up with the Chapterhouse situation have you?

I have... you are frustratingly ignorant of the differences between copyrights, trademarks and Intellectual property.

Chapterhouse was never accused of 'COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT' or 'RECASTING GW MODELS'. If they were doing that, they would have lost and lost big. They didn't recast any GW models so it is not a copyright case.

Chapterhouse and chinese counterfeiters are nothing alike and have nothing to do with each other.

My statement is perfectly valid and correct. Copyrights protects the model and the mold. GW owns those sculpts, even in china.

IP infringement is a totally different arena and issue. This has to do with copyright infringement.

At this point, I sincerely hope that Testify is just trolling, otherwise I'll lose even more faith in humanity.

The amount of blind loyalty is overwhelming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Charax wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

GW has had extremely easy time proving ownership of thier copyrights, which is exactly what is what is being infringed upon and why the ebay stores and websites do get shut down.

So they do claim ownership of thier copyrights and can prove they own them.

You haven't been keeping up with the Chapterhouse situation have you?

I have... you are frustratingly ignorant of the differences between copyrights, trademarks and Intellectual property.

Chapterhouse was never accused of 'COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT' or 'RECASTING GW MODELS'. If they were doing that, they would have lost and lost big. They didn't recast any GW models so it is not a copyright case.

Chapterhouse and chinese counterfeiters are nothing alike and have nothing to do with each other.

My statement is perfectly valid and correct. Copyrights protects the model and the mold. GW owns those sculpts, even in china.

IP infringement is a totally different arena and issue. This has to do with copyright infringement.

Except all those copyrights that GW claims are being infringed upon, such as the shoulder pad design, the jet bikes, the eldar models. They aren't disputing the use of trademarks(which GW also didn't prove use of), they are straight up claiming that CHS is infringing on the copyrights of those items, but never showed ownership of any such copyrights.

An item doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy to infringe a copyright.

 Testify wrote:
The intellectual copyright would be dead. There would be no new "Imperial Guard codex" as we know it. Say goodbye to Space Marines, say hello to "The United Space Trooper Core". Yeah, doesn't quite fit.

In the same way in which there was no more Mechwarrior when FASA died, no more D&D when TSR died, no more Lord of the Rings content after JRR Tolkien died, I suppose.

The entire point of the concept of "intellectual property" is to protect it for the owner. This gives IP a value. The secondary effects of that, though, is that IP can be transferred or licensed to other people or businesses for their own use. The IP having been granted value means that, should GW collapse as a business, you can bet your life that another company, whether Privateer Press, Hasbro, Microsoft, the dessicated corpse of Christopher Tolkien... SOMEBODY will buy the rights to the IP and continue to produce things based upon that background.

 Aerethan wrote:


No one is part of the Ford hobby, yet metric tons of people are vehicle enthusiasts or hobbyists.

I know loads of people who can prove this statement false. 'brand loyalty' and being a FORD or BMW enthusiast is a massive thing int he car owner hobby.

There are forums, shows, meet-ups all dedicated to specific brands and people who only collect and restore specific brands...

The idea that hobbies cannot be brand-specific and have to be generalized as a way to invalidate people's hobbies simply doesn't work. Some hobbies are sub-catergories of others, doesn't mean sub divisions never happen and are invalid.

 Testify wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

Hahaha! You're very right. I'm not just a car driver, I drive a 6th gen Camaro. It's not a car, it's a Camaro. I will simply ignore anyone who tries to define me as a (barf) CAR driver. Camaro's most certaintly do not share any of the same characteristics as any other car. *facepalm*

Good metaphor. You drive a car, does that mean you're interested in engines and horsepower and torque and motor racing?

Yes, it's perfect. Playing 40k is part of the tabletop wargaming hobby, much as me driving my Camaro is part of the driving community. Games Workshop manufactures 40k for the tabletop wargame hobbyists, as Chevrolet manufactures a Camaro for the car driving community. The "Games Workshop HOBBY" is the exact same non-existant entity that is designed to make 40k players feel superior as the Camaro Club is a non-existant entity designed to make Camaro enthusiasts feel superior to other members of the car driving community.

40k is a tabletop wargame. Your hobby includes all those neckbeards by association. There is nothing elite about 40k other than the high prices. But that's fine, people are willing to pay high prices, as I paid a high price for my Camaro. However, you might have bought a used car, in the same way that the Dark Angels army I just bought were used, 75% off retail, and GW did not see a penny from that sale.

nkelsch wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


No one is part of the Ford hobby, yet metric tons of people are vehicle enthusiasts or hobbyists.

I know loads of people who can prove this statement false. 'brand loyalty' and being a FORD or BMW enthusiast is a massive thing int he car owner hobby.

There are forums, shows, meet-ups all dedicated to specific brands and people who only collect and restore specific brands...

The idea that hobbies cannot be brand-specific and have to be generalized as a way to invalidate people's hobbies simply doesn't work. Some hobbies are sub-catergories of others, doesn't mean sub divisions never happen and are invalid.

Is a Ford enthusiast a car enthusiast? Yes. In every case, seeing as cars are all Ford makes.

Now is a car enthusiast a Ford enthusiast? Not always, seeing as Ford isn't the only company that makes cars.

Brand specificity doesn't make it's own hobby, but rather a faction or subsection of a hobby, just like GW, or PP, or Mantic or whoever.

No one claims to like Ford but not like cars.

And a side note, I've met more neckbeards playing 40k than I've ever met playing any other game, tabletop or otherwise. So there's that.

 Aerethan wrote:

Except all those copyrights that GW claims are being infringed upon, such as the shoulder pad design, the jet bikes, the eldar models. They aren't disputing the use of trademarks(which GW also didn't prove use of), they are straight up claiming that CHS is infringing on the copyrights of those items, but never showed ownership of any such copyrights.

An item doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy to infringe a copyright.

But the chinese ones *ARE* 1:1 copies... and the copyright claims of the chapterhouse scenatio claimed CH used GW models as blanks which would have been a valid claim if true. But it wasn't true so there was no copyrights being infringed upon.

Designs, the jetbikes and eldar models are not recasts of GW models and have nothing to do with copyrights. Copyrights protect the piece, not the likeness. If I sculpt a space marine from scratch, it is not copyright infringement of their molds or sculpts... it may be IP infringement if they can prove it and I wish to take it to court.

So how does GW not own thier copyrights because of the CH case? and how does that make the recasting not copyright infringement?

nkelsch wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

Except all those copyrights that GW claims are being infringed upon, such as the shoulder pad design, the jet bikes, the eldar models. They aren't disputing the use of trademarks(which GW also didn't prove use of), they are straight up claiming that CHS is infringing on the copyrights of those items, but never showed ownership of any such copyrights.

An item doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy to infringe a copyright.

But the chinese ones *ARE* 1:1 copies... and the copyright claims of the chapterhouse scenatio claimed CH used GW models as blanks which would have been a valid claim if true. But it wasn't true so there was no copyrights being infringed upon.

Designs, the jetbikes and eldar models are not recasts of GW models and have nothing to do with copyrights. Copyrights protect the piece, not the likeness. If I sculpt a space marine from scratch, it is not copyright infringement of their molds or sculpts... it may be IP infringement if they can prove it and I wish to take it to court.

So how does GW not own thier copyrights because of the CH case? and how does that make the recasting not copyright infringement?

1. GW said that the CHS jetbike infringed on the design(copyright) of the purple bikes they showed as evidence. The GW jetbike was a painting, not a sculpture, and GW still claimed it was being infringed upon.

2. GW might own said copyrights, but they still have to PROVE it. I can claim I own all manner of items, and I may actually own them, but if I can't prove that ownership then I'm just talking out my ass.

3. I never said that the Chinese recasts didn't infringe copyrights. They do. I'll readily admit that.

4. This has all veered way off topic. No one cares about how elitist anyone is with the word "hobby". Recasts aren't killing anything. Shut up and let it go(to those whom that applies).

The site took down the items, it will show up again. End of story. Can we lock this now?

 Aerethan wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


No one is part of the Ford hobby, yet metric tons of people are vehicle enthusiasts or hobbyists.

I know loads of people who can prove this statement false. 'brand loyalty' and being a FORD or BMW enthusiast is a massive thing int he car owner hobby.

There are forums, shows, meet-ups all dedicated to specific brands and people who only collect and restore specific brands...

The idea that hobbies cannot be brand-specific and have to be generalized as a way to invalidate people's hobbies simply doesn't work. Some hobbies are sub-catergories of others, doesn't mean sub divisions never happen and are invalid.

Is a Ford enthusiast a car enthusiast? Yes. In every case, seeing as cars are all Ford makes.

Now is a car enthusiast a Ford enthusiast? Not always, seeing as Ford isn't the only company that makes cars.

Brand specificity doesn't make it's own hobby, but rather a faction or subsection of a hobby, just like GW, or PP, or Mantic or whoever.

No one claims to like Ford but not like cars.

And a side note, I've met more neckbeards playing 40k than I've ever met playing any other game, tabletop or otherwise. So there's that.

And wargaming minis is a sub hobby of a 'gaming' hobby, and gaming is a subhobby of 'recreational activities' compared to sports or movies, it can also be considered a sub hobby of artistic hobbies but that doesn't make a violin player the same as a wargaming painter as they are both 'artistic hobbies'.

Anyone arrogant enough to tell people what 'their' hobby is and what the valid cross-section of their experience is and how general or defined their interest is beyond discussion as they are being purposefully dense to win arguments...

And I can tell you there are people who love ford and don't like cars... it is called truck owners... Who said you get to define all mechanical vehicles under the same hobby and make that the only valid determination of such a hobby?

Really? cars vs trucks? I should have specified automobiles if you are going to nit pick.

Hot damn that is asinine.

Well, it seems as if we've reached the point in this thread where little else will be accomplished.

Opinions on the matter clearly vary - and as long as the rules of this site are followed, I think we'll all be OK in the end.

As for this thread - it is now closed.