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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Would you support recasting if you knew the harm to be significant?

Of course not Kilkrazy, that is what I am trying to figure out here. I do not support full model casts for a lot of reasons, but I have a really hard time offending someone by just calling them an outright thief if it is for personal use.

I may have a different opinion than some of you on this, the fact still remains that theft results in the loss of property (which can include money). By saying that my argument is a straw man argument you are sticking to moral guns, and I simply will not accept what you say as fact by default due to that.

...
...

I have pointed out several times that copyright violation is only theft under certain circumstances (such as some DCMA clauses.) That does not mean it is right behaviour. It is an offence under law, and has moral implications in the deprivation of legitimate artists of the benefits of their labours.

You keep asking for figures, so I assume you've put some thought into that kind of detail.
What level of harm is acceptable for recasting?
How would you quantify it?
Would you judge it on a moral or a practical basis?
Would you consider the effect on 3rd parties as well as GW?
How would you divide the free harm allowance between recasters?

What level of harm is acceptable for recasting?

None, I would hope; but this is a very broad question that would cover a lot of GW products to varying degrees.

How would you quantify it?

By "harm" I would assume means loss of profits, mainly because a corporations only human-like trait is to "survive", which they accomplish through various means.

Would you judge it on a moral or a practical basis?

Practical. All other aspects of this debate seem to be nearly intangible to a degree that is unacceptably manipulable.

Would you consider the effect on 3rd parties as well as GW?

GW is the focus in this discussion because it is their product, anything beyond that is nearly irrelevant to how it effects GW. GW is the "person" that may or may not be at a loss in profit due to these actions.

How would you divide the free harm allowance between recasters?

Define "free harm" please.

The issue of morality keeps drifting in and out of the spotlight in this thread (having grown prodigiously since I last visited Dakka), which I think indicates that morality--rather than legality--is the real issue. And that's no surprise. People going about their daily lives do not think primarily in terms of the law when making choices with moral implications. They think intuitively about what seems right or wrong to them. Most people have no moral problem with the recasting of a meltagun but would be repulsed by a recast Leman Russ.

Contrast this with the view (as I have interpreted it) of those who stress the illegality of recasting. They seem to be claiming either:

(1) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then it must be morally wrong in and of itself, i.e., it was wrong before it became illegal and the law accurately identifies it as such

-OR-

(2) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then its very illegality is sufficient to make it wrong.

The first statement is most pertinent because I would guess that people confronted with the second one would immediately disclaim it (although I think they believe it at least in part). In any case, both of the statements are false: morality is not presumptively related to positive law. (I believe someone already brought up the Nuremberg Laws so I won't bother discussing that point in greater detail.) We have the statement "the law is x" but so what? We know that the law can be exercised coercively against us: if we disobey, a government actor may punish us. Again, so what? The question is neither "what is the law?" nor "will I be punished if I violate it?" The question is rather "why should I feel bound in conscience to follow the law?" In other words: setting aside the fact that someone more powerful than me will hurt me if I am disobedient, why should I obey a law?

I think that this thread has demonstrated that not everyone buys into the sanctity of property rights or the Lockean assumptions about how they arise. Some of the people here might further find that they do not agree with the great narrative of American prosperity as a consequence of nearly absolute rights regarding so-called "private" property. They might even be shocked to learn that this concept is not actually an inherent truth about the nature of the universe or even *gasp* an inescapable, practical conclusion about the human condition. And how would they react to the notion that there are theories about justice that do not agree with the Aristotelian "giving to each what he deserves/what is his" notion that underlies our law in the UK and US (like, for example, the early christian notion of justice as peace or John Rawls's idea of justice as fairness)? When you tear down these sorts of assumptions you find a question that is actually worth discussion: what, other than force, binds me to follow the law? If the answer is "nothing" then the question becomes: is the threat of force in the face of disobedience enough to make a law just?

Wrexasaur wrote:

What level of harm is acceptable for recasting?

None, I would hope; but this is a very broad question that would cover a lot of GW products to varying degrees.

How would you quantify it?

By "harm" I would assume means loss of profits, mainly because a corporations only human-like trait is to "survive", which they accomplish through various means.

Would you judge it on a moral or a practical basis?

Practical. All other aspects of this debate seem to be nearly intangible to a degree that is unacceptably manipulable.

Would you consider the effect on 3rd parties as well as GW?

GW is the focus in this discussion because it is their product, anything beyond that is nearly irrelevant to how it effects GW. GW is the "person" that may or may not be at a loss in profit due to these actions.

How would you divide the free harm allowance between recasters?

Define "free harm" please.

Free Harm is the amount of money you decide it is acceptable for GW to lose in sales because of recasting, and no legal consequences are to be visited upon the recasters.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The issue of morality keeps drifting in and out of the spotlight in this thread (having grown prodigiously since I last visited Dakka), which I think indicates that morality--rather than legality--is the real issue. And that's no surprise. People going about their daily lives do not think primarily in terms of the law when making choices with moral implications. They think intuitively about what seems right or wrong to them. Most people have no moral problem with the recasting of a meltagun but would be repulsed by a recast Leman Russ.

Contrast this with the view (as I have interpreted it) of those who stress the illegality of recasting. They seem to be claiming either:

(1) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then it must be morally wrong in and of itself, i.e., it was wrong before it became illegal

-OR-

(2) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then its very illegality is sufficient to make it wrong.

Very thoughtful post.

I often think that forcing people to obey the law is pointless. People do not like being compelled to do anything. The way to get people to obey the law is to get them to want to obey it from the dictates of their own conscience.

One way of doing that is to show people that it is in their own best interests for everyone to obey the law, because it solves or avoids various kinds of problems.

In the case of recasting, some people focus on their personal situation and don't think their $20 worth of meltaguns are going to cause any real harm, so they see no problem with doing it.

Kilkrazy wrote:Free Harm is the amount of money you decide it is acceptable for GW to lose in sales because of recasting, and no legal consequences are to be visited upon the recasters.

Kilkrazy wrote:How would you divide the free harm allowance between recasters?

If the total loss is around 100 dollars spread among all of GW's customers, you get a "moral" debt of none.

By not taking direct action to stop people from adding to your loss as a GW customer, you are inevitably a part of the whole.

None: the day I can spend/invest fractions of pennies and turn any sort of real profit (not in the next century mind you, within my lifetime please) is the day that I own the entire universe.

Direct action: by enforcing (screaming at the managers about these thieves until you are blue in the face) GW's most severe IP rules, you will be taking direct action.

I thought morals had already been discounted.

I am interested in the practicalities of your plan.

What if there are $1,000,000 worth of recast products being made each year?

Kilkrazy wrote:What if there are $1,000,000 worth of recast products being made each year?

Then I would be happy to not be a part of it.

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought morals had already been discounted.

Wrex wrote:...you get a "moral" debt of none...

None: the day I can spend/invest fractions of pennies and turn any sort of real profit (not in the next century mind you, within my lifetime please) is the day that I own the entire universe.

Manchu wrote:The issue of morality keeps drifting in and out of the spotlight in this thread (having grown prodigiously since I last visited Dakka), which I think indicates that morality--rather than legality--is the real issue. And that's no surprise. People going about their daily lives do not think primarily in terms of the law when making choices with moral implications. They think intuitively about what seems right or wrong to them. Most people have no moral problem with the recasting of a meltagun but would be repulsed by a recast Leman Russ.

Contrast this with the view (as I have interpreted it) of those who stress the illegality of recasting. They seem to be claiming either:

(1) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then it must be morally wrong in and of itself, i.e., it was wrong before it became illegal and the law accurately identifies it as such

-OR-

(2) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then its very illegality is sufficient to make it wrong.

The first statement is most pertinent because I would guess that people confronted with the second one would immediately disclaim it (although I think they believe it at least in part). In any case, both of the statements are false: morality is not presumptively related to positive law. (I believe someone already brought up the Nuremberg Laws so I won't bother discussing that point in greater detail.) We have the statement "the law is x" but so what? We know that the law can be exercised coercively against us: if we disobey, a government actor may punish us. Again, so what? The question is neither "what is the law?" nor "will I be punished if I violate it?" The question is rather "why should I feel bound in conscience to follow the law?" In other words: setting aside the fact that someone more powerful than me will hurt me if I am disobedient, why should I obey a law?

I think that this thread has demonstrated that not everyone buys into the sanctity of property rights or the Lockean assumptions about how they arise. Some of the people here might further find that they do not agree with the great narrative of American prosperity as a consequence of nearly absolute rights regarding so-called "private" property. They might even be shocked to learn that this concept is not actually an inherent truth about the nature of the universe or even *gasp* an inescapable, practical conclusion about the human condition. And how would they react to the notion that there are theories about justice that do not agree with the Aristotelian "giving to each what he deserves/what is his" notion that underlies our law in the UK and US (like, for example, the early christian notion of justice as peace or John Rawls's idea of justice as fairness)? When you tear down these sorts of assumptions you find a question that is actually worth discussion: what, other than force, binds me to follow the law? If the answer is "nothing" then the question becomes: is the threat of force in the face of disobedience enough to make a law just?

Very nicely put Manchu. To put it bluntly, not everyone will agree on everything in the subject of morals Unfortunately, some people seem to think that if you disagree with their sense of morals, you must be a bad person, regardless of whether you disagree with those morals on your own logical grounds. They would rather believe that you disagree with them for the sole purpose of personal gain, than because you may have a different view of the world and law to them, and as such, label you with the use of absurd analogies.

insaniak wrote:To be fair, a lot of websites do in fact provide images that they allow people to use. It's a bit premature to be calling hypocrisy without knowing whether or not that's the case for whichever site that image originally came from...

Which would have been much easier to determine if she'd posted where she'd gotten them from, as opposed to the terms that she's allegedly gotten them under (I'd be much less suspicious, if she hadn't ducked giving the artist credit when she answered, doubly so, because forum avatars are the single greatest source of image theft I encounter from my website)

LunaHound wrote:

insaniak wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:The images you're using are COPYRIGHTED, Luna. Unless you have permission from the artist to use them or they were explicitly posted in the public domain, you're STEALING them. Does this argument sound familiar? Oh, the hypocrisy...

To be fair, a lot of websites do in fact provide images that they allow people to use. It's a bit premature to be calling hypocrisy without knowing whether or not that's the case for whichever site that image originally came from...

Wise and smart , difference of a Dakka *2 veteran

I'm sure you have permission to use said images. Could you kindly point me to the location that gives said permission for the pics you use?

If you're not doing to resell, just keep your gob shut and get on with it. This way it makes no odds if people agree or disagree... they won't know about it! Any other option means you're just looking for attention or an argument.

Ketara wrote:
Very nicely put Manchu. To put it bluntly, not everyone will agree on everything in the subject of morals Unfortunately, some people seem to think that if you disagree with their sense of morals, you must be a bad person, regardless of whether you disagree with those morals on your own logical grounds. They would rather believe that you disagree with them for the sole purpose of personal gain, than because you may have a different view of the world and law to them, and as such, label you with the use of absurd analogies.

How wishy-washy.

I call it as I see it. I don't believe that it's acceptable to mutilate someone's genitals, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe that it's acceptable to have sex with children, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe it's acceptable to eat my own species, even though some cultures do. And I don't believe that it's acceptable to steal intellectual property, even though some people apparently do. You're welcome to your alternative morality if it helps you sleep better at night. Don't expect me to consider you a decent person though. I don't buy into this self-righteous moral relativity that's nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at justifying criminal activity for personal gain.

Redbeard wrote:I call it as I see it. I don't believe that it's acceptable to mutilate someone's genitals, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe that it's acceptable to have sex with children, even though there are cultures that do. I don't believe it's acceptable to eat my own species, even though some cultures do. And I don't believe that it's acceptable to steal intellectual property, even though some people apparently do. You're welcome to your alternative morality if it helps you sleep better at night. Don't expect me to consider you a decent person though. I don't buy into this self-righteous moral relativity that's nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at justifying criminal activity for personal gain.

Ooo burn!

Seriously though, how many of the people with a "different view on morality" are actually in a position to lose something they have under their new "system"?

Modquisition on:
I was about to pop on and congratulate everyone on 16 pages without warnings, suspensions, etc.

Lets keep iup the good work and maintain civilness guys.

16 pages? wow...

Ketara wrote:

Manchu wrote:The issue of morality keeps drifting in and out of the spotlight in this thread (having grown prodigiously since I last visited Dakka), which I think indicates that morality--rather than legality--is the real issue. And that's no surprise. People going about their daily lives do not think primarily in terms of the law when making choices with moral implications. They think intuitively about what seems right or wrong to them. Most people have no moral problem with the recasting of a meltagun but would be repulsed by a recast Leman Russ.

Contrast this with the view (as I have interpreted it) of those who stress the illegality of recasting. They seem to be claiming either:

(1) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then it must be morally wrong in and of itself, i.e., it was wrong before it became illegal and the law accurately identifies it as such

-OR-

(2) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then its very illegality is sufficient to make it wrong.

The first statement is most pertinent because I would guess that people confronted with the second one would immediately disclaim it (although I think they believe it at least in part). In any case, both of the statements are false: morality is not presumptively related to positive law. (I believe someone already brought up the Nuremberg Laws so I won't bother discussing that point in greater detail.) We have the statement "the law is x" but so what? We know that the law can be exercised coercively against us: if we disobey, a government actor may punish us. Again, so what? The question is neither "what is the law?" nor "will I be punished if I violate it?" The question is rather "why should I feel bound in conscience to follow the law?" In other words: setting aside the fact that someone more powerful than me will hurt me if I am disobedient, why should I obey a law?

I think that this thread has demonstrated that not everyone buys into the sanctity of property rights or the Lockean assumptions about how they arise. Some of the people here might further find that they do not agree with the great narrative of American prosperity as a consequence of nearly absolute rights regarding so-called "private" property. They might even be shocked to learn that this concept is not actually an inherent truth about the nature of the universe or even *gasp* an inescapable, practical conclusion about the human condition. And how would they react to the notion that there are theories about justice that do not agree with the Aristotelian "giving to each what he deserves/what is his" notion that underlies our law in the UK and US (like, for example, the early christian notion of justice as peace or John Rawls's idea of justice as fairness)? When you tear down these sorts of assumptions you find a question that is actually worth discussion: what, other than force, binds me to follow the law? If the answer is "nothing" then the question becomes: is the threat of force in the face of disobedience enough to make a law just?

Very nicely put Manchu. To put it bluntly, not everyone will agree on everything in the subject of morals Unfortunately, some people seem to think that if you disagree with their sense of morals, you must be a bad person, regardless of whether you disagree with those morals on your own logical grounds. They would rather believe that you disagree with them for the sole purpose of personal gain, than because you may have a different view of the world and law to them, and as such, label you with the use of absurd analogies.

Agreed. Just because someone recasts a meltagun imo does not give people the license to be a bigot and label people as thieves or any other kind of derogatory nonsense. Just because someone doesn't fix up their old Mustang with genuine Ford parts doesn't mean that its "wrong" although this example like most in this thread aren't EXACTLY identical to whats really being talked about.

Manchu wrote:Contrast this with the view (as I have interpreted it) of those who stress the illegality of recasting. They seem to be claiming either:

(1) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then it must be morally wrong in and of itself, i.e., it was wrong before it became illegal and the law accurately identifies it as such

-OR-

(2) if something has been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal then its very illegality is sufficient to make it wrong.

The first statement is most pertinent because I would guess that people confronted with the second one would immediately disclaim it (although I think they believe it at least in part). In any case, both of the statements are false: morality is not presumptively related to positive law. (I believe someone already brought up the Nuremberg Laws so I won't bother discussing that point in greater detail.) We have the statement "the law is x" but so what? We know that the law can be exercised coercively against us: if we disobey, a government actor may punish us. Again, so what? The question is neither "what is the law?" nor "will I be punished if I violate it?" The question is rather "why should I feel bound in conscience to follow the law?" In other words: setting aside the fact that someone more powerful than me will hurt me if I am disobedient, why should I obey a law?

I think that this thread has demonstrated that not everyone buys into the sanctity of property rights or the Lockean assumptions about how they arise. Some of the people here might further find that they do not agree with the great narrative of American prosperity as a consequence of nearly absolute rights regarding so-called "private" property. They might even be shocked to learn that this concept is not actually an inherent truth about the nature of the universe or even *gasp* an inescapable, practical conclusion about the human condition. And how would they react to the notion that there are theories about justice that do not agree with the Aristotelian "giving to each what he deserves/what is his" notion that underlies our law in the UK and US (like, for example, the early christian notion of justice as peace or John Rawls's idea of justice as fairness)? When you tear down these sorts of assumptions you find a question that is actually worth discussion: what, other than force, binds me to follow the law? If the answer is "nothing" then the question becomes: is the threat of force in the face of disobedience enough to make a law just?

I, too, did my time in political thought classes. I have studied and discussed all the models of society and law you discussed, and others as well. And, perhaps like Dr. Pangloss, I am convinced that we are in the best of all possible systems.

Why? Results. My philosophy is downright Darwinian here - nothing succeeds like success.

True communism (read: "commune-ism") as taught in the Bible has never been successfully implemented on any significant scale. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism turned out to be an excuse for authoritarianism, and not especially successful authoritarianism at that. No nation-state is organized as a pure democracy. No functional nation-state lacks the concept of private property. Those "countries" which rely purely on force yield terrifying stories of mass rape and murder (looking at you, Somalia).

Respect for the legal process is a unifying force, and it keeps society functioning on a local, national, and global scale. Yes, the law can be (and often is) a coercive force, but I reject the thought that most people are constrained solely from that coercive nature. Deep down, we're all lonely, scared, little monkeys, and the existence of a legal system which means I don't have to fear you when I meet you lets us get past the first few ranks of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and down into the important things, like playing with little men (which have been obtained legitimately).

Cane wrote:
Agreed. Just because someone recasts a meltagun imo does not give people the license to be a bigot and label people as thieves or any other kind of derogatory nonsense.

I am not sure you understand the term bigot.

Wikipedia states:

A bigot is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.[1] Bigotry is the corresponding mindset or action.

The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animus toward those of differing devotion.

Note "irrationality". My views are based on rational thought. I make my living creating Intellectual Property. If people seriously believe that it is ok to steal intellectual property, then my livelihood is at stake. The fact that a meltagun is perhaps only one day's worth of design work is no more relevant than the fact that a candy bar costs about 5 cents to make. No one in this thread has claimed that stealing a candybar, or shoplifting other petty items that have no impact on one's survival is a moral thing to do. And yet, when it comes to stealing intellectual property, there's a group of people out there who believe that because they want something, they have a right to just take it, and their defense for their ideals are that GW won't sell it to them at a price they like, and that GW isn't losing all that much when they do it.

That's not alternative morality, that's justification of selfish action. They have a right to believe it if they want. I have a right to consider them thieves and immoral people.

Semantics, schematics. I see your Wiki definition and raise you one from merriam-webster.com:

Bigot:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Which the anti recasting camp definitely looks like to me.

Not sure why you keep bringing up the candybar example; recasting an item that you originally bought is not the same thing as 'petty' shoplifting.

The tone, time, and language used indicates to me that this discussion is more than just whats at face value and I'll leave it at that.

I have no problem with people trying to make their own replica of a classic or exotic car. Same deal with models about 'em; its this similar line of thought that I extent to recasting.

Also have no problem with people trying to homebrew their favorite kind of beer and making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

Cane wrote:making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

Thats a horrible analogy tbh.

Thanks for your contribution

Cane wrote:Thanks for your contribution

When someone make copies of their CD / DVDs tell me the reasons they do it for.
and
When someone make copies of minis , tell me the reasons they do it for.

Im sure you'll see the difference

So they can have more than one copy of each.

Cane wrote:So they can have more than one copy of each.

K , lets look at it with more detail.

For what reasons does the 2 cases have for wanting more than 1 copy

Janthkin wrote:Respect for the legal process is a unifying force, and it keeps society functioning on a local, national, and global scale. Yes, the law can be (and often is) a coercive force, but I reject the thought that most people are constrained solely from that coercive nature. Deep down, we're all lonely, scared, little monkeys, and the existence of a legal system which means I don't have to fear you when I meet you lets us get past the first few ranks of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and down into the important things, like playing with little men (which have been obtained legitimately).

I'm a bit confused. You are saying that there are reasons to obey the law other than fear of coercive force. But your example is based on a calculus of fear: it is better to have to be afraid of one group (the government) rather than all groups. I suspect that you are more like Pangloss than you recognize.

How about you just write what you want to see and save us both some time - directed to the anime person

How do you feel about GW staff writing articles about recasting GW bitz? Or the fact that molding/casting has been a part of the model-making/wargaming hobby longer than GW's or Citadel's been around?

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on:
I was about to pop on and congratulate everyone on 16 pages without warnings, suspensions, etc.

Lets keep iup the good work and maintain civilness guys.

16 pages? wow...

You should look at the 27 pages I had to delete.

Just joking.

Cane wrote:How about you just write what you want to see and save us both some time

I rather not . Because unlike most people , been told yes im right means nothing to me.
I perfer to break things down layer by layer to figure out how this whole thing turn into such a mess.

We can get back to :

For what reasons does the 2 cases have for wanting more than 1 copy

But if you dont feel like it , thats fine too. (If you do choose to get to the botton of this with me , im sure you'll see this
whole thing in a whole new perspective )

Luna it does feel like you're trying to skirt around than actually talk about my main points. That CD/DVD example is just one of many that I listed and was used to deliver a point rather than be the point.

Feel free to point out how you feel about the other examples I quoted though, although I do agree that they are far from perfect just like most analogies since its going to be a bit tough finding a perfect example:

I have no problem with people trying to make their own replica of a classic or exotic car. Same deal with models about 'em; its this similar line of thought that I extent to recasting.

Also have no problem with people trying to homebrew their favorite kind of beer and making copies of CD's and DVD's they own.

So far I can't help but agree with Manchu and Ketara.

Manchu wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Respect for the legal process is a unifying force, and it keeps society functioning on a local, national, and global scale. Yes, the law can be (and often is) a coercive force, but I reject the thought that most people are constrained solely from that coercive nature. Deep down, we're all lonely, scared, little monkeys, and the existence of a legal system which means I don't have to fear you when I meet you lets us get past the first few ranks of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and down into the important things, like playing with little men (which have been obtained legitimately).

I'm a bit confused. You are saying that there are reasons to obey the law other than fear of coercive force. But your example is based on a calculus of fear: it is better to have to be afraid of one group (the government) rather than all groups. I suspect that you are more like Pangloss than you recognize.

It's not "Obey the law or face punishment." It's "Collective agreement to obey the law means we don't have to fear anyone bigger/stronger/with better weapons than me."

Less fear of coercive force, more belief in a social contract.

Janthkin wrote:Less fear of coercive force, more belief in a social contract.

I doubt we will ever agree on two points: the existence of a social contract and the legitimacy of absolute or near-absolute private property.