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.

Cane wrote: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.

What is your point, exactly?

I will freely admit to be intolerant of people who knowingly and willfully break the law. This extends to shoplifters and murderers, as well as recasters. I don't hate them, nor do I especially think I treat them with hatred. I suspect you'll find most people are intolerant of murderers; does that make everyone bigoted against murderers? If so, is that a bad thing?

Homebrewing of beer is an inapplicable example. Unless you've managed to get your hands on Miller's (trade secret) recipe, you're not going to be infringing any of their rights by brewing. Pouring your brew into their bottles and selling it, though, is going to get you into trouble.

Copying of CDs is an inapplicable example; you have the appropriate rights to do so, unless you start giving copies away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

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.

Perhaps not. Fortunately for me, my position is perhaps a little closer to the current situation.

Head over to Adepticon in 2010, though, and I'll use some of my absolute private property to procure for you a beer.

Redbeard wrote:

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.

You know, the beauty of this post is that I can copy and paste it, with only two modifications.

-Change, 'acceptable to steal intellectual property' to 'acceptable to be uncivil to other users online', and
-'justifying criminal activity for personal gain' to 'justifying forcing my own unwanted version of morality on other people'

'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 acceptable to be uncivil to other users online, 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 forcing my own unwanted version of morality on other people'

The debates moved on. If you're so insistent that I'm a thief, then fair enough, that's your view. But I don't believe I should have to tolerate you pushing this view on me every time I make a post. Please stop now. Thank you.

So on Dakka right now we have a thread in which someone is advertising a product they are selling that is based on GW IP. We can talk circles around fact that he is sculpting/scratch building, etc., etc. but we all know what it is and where he got the idea and what it is suppose dot be used for. So he is selling something that is based off GW IP. Does he have a license to do so? I'm guessing that people might buy this kit instead of some superheavy that GW or FW offers, so isn't it the same issue of taking money from GW's coffers and using IP without permission?


I have no issue with it personally, I'm just curious to hear Lunahound and the rest of the morally pure expound some more...

CT GAMER wrote:
I have no issue with it personally, I'm just curious to hear Lunahound and the rest of the morally pure expound some more...

Im assuming you are talking about chapter house?

Are you seriously telling me what chapter house is doing is the same line as someone taking an existing bit of melta to recast it directly?

Hm dot dot dot lets see...

Chapter House:
We sculpt / produce items that are shadyly close to 40k chapters ( If CH use existing GW products , recasts it , and claim it to be something else ,
then yes its like all the bad recasters ) They are shady because we know what the products are inteded for , but ultimately they still made it from scratch
instead of a direct straight rip off/ recast .

vs

Counterfeit casters:
We stick the exact product in to be recasted , for exactly what it is.

Do i think Chapter House is clever? Yes i do.
Do i think they'll get away with it? No , it'll end up the same result as those Castle Titans ( forgot the company name )

Actually, the man has a good point. Chapterhouse are making money out of GW's universe, that writers worked hard creating. Technically, they're in breach of the copyright law too, I think. Even if they do have a lawyer that says otherwise.

Janthkin wrote:

Cane wrote: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.

What is your point, exactly?

I will freely admit to be intolerant of people who knowingly and willfully break the law. This extends to shoplifters and murderers, as well as recasters. I don't hate them, nor do I especially think I treat them with hatred. I suspect you'll find most people are intolerant of murderers; does that make everyone bigoted against murderers? If so, is that a bad thing?

Homebrewing of beer is an inapplicable example. Unless you've managed to get your hands on Miller's (trade secret) recipe, you're not going to be infringing any of their rights by brewing. Pouring your brew into their bottles and selling it, though, is going to get you into trouble.

Copying of CDs is an inapplicable example; you have the appropriate rights to do so, unless you start giving copies away.

My point is that this is nothing worth getting worked over for especially to the point of people generalizing and labeling eachother with derogatory terms but I will admit of calling anti-recasters bigots (specifically those that call the opposing side thieves for instance).

However when the other camp starts to equate recasting with murders and the like I do have to wonder how those cogs in other people's heads seem to work. That kind of extreme-ism especially against your fellow wargamer seems counter productive to legitimate discussion.

Imo this is just another venue for haters to hate ala what Manchu and Ketara wrote. Just because something is law or written by GW as such doesn't mean they hold much weight as evident by the articles and recasting methods GW staff have done.

Would you have a moral problem with someone trying to build or fix up a classic Mustang even though they don't give a dime to Ford?

This type of issue also reminds me of some lawsuits involving military equipment/vehicle manufactureres trying to sue model companies since they don't give them royalties for using that design; does this type of recasting hate extend towards Tamiya and Revell who never spent a penny to the miltiary for their model success?

Hypothetical situation: A customer buys a GW model kit but accidentally breaks a meltagun to the point of it being useless. However the customer has access to a meltagun mold; would this person still be in the "wrong" if they exercised to use the mold for their situation?

Lots of shades of gray here than the clear-cut way GW lawyers try to make it out to be; although you can't really fault legal people for trying to do their job.

Cane wrote: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.

You have a pretty selective way of reading threads.

Firstly, the so-called 'anti-recasting camp' are devoted to the legals laws of modern civilisation, not their own prejudices.

Secondly, the pro-recasting group are united not by religion, race or other belief but simply by their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

It's not up to you to have a problem or not to have a problem about people copying stuff, unless it's your stuff. Society as a whole has already decided that copying stuff without permissoin is wrong. You as a creator can allow people to copy your own stuff, and you have no rights over someone else's stuff.

Janthkin wrote:Perhaps not. Fortunately for me, my position is perhaps a little closer to the current situation.

Head over to Adepticon in 2010, though, and I'll use some of my absolute private property to procure for you a beer.

I hope that your position, which seems actually grounded in imminent fairness despite your description of its theoretical premises, is closer to the current situation than the situation that I am criticizing. And I'll buy you a beer back in recognition of the universal destination of goods.

Cane wrote:
Hypothetical situation: A customer buys a GW model kit but accidentally breaks a meltagun to the point of it being useless. However the customer has access to a meltagun mold; would this person still be in the "wrong" if they exercised to use the mold for their situation?

Thats VERY different then what was originally talked about " recasting melta gun because its too expensive to buy the rest "

Which is why the WHOLE moral issue was brought in.

Because there is 1 possibility of the person will just cast ONE meltagun to replace the broken one.
while the same situation someone can just cast 20 of their whole army
and FINALLY the same situation someone can just as easily cast 20000 and make profit from extras.

Political theory mixed with gaming? My birthday isn't until next month guys.

Mine is today!

LunaHound wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I have no issue with it personally, I'm just curious to hear Lunahound and the rest of the morally pure expound some more...

Im assuming you are talking about chapter house?

Are you seriously telling me what chapter house is doing is the same line as someone taking an existing bit of melta to recast it directly?

Hm dot dot dot lets see...

Chapter House:
We sculpt / produce items that are shadyly close to 40k chapters ( If CH use existing GW products , recasts it , and claim it to be something else ,
then yes its like all the bad recasters ) They are shady because we know what the products are inteded for , but ultimately they still made it from scratch
instead of a direct straight rip off/ recast .

vs

Counterfeit casters:
We stick the exact product in to be recasted , for exactly what it is.

Do i think Chapter House is clever? Yes i do.
Do i think they'll get away with it? No , it'll end up the same result as those Castle Titans ( forgot the company name )

I'm talking about the Titan thread, but chapter house is similar. Both are making money off someone elses IP if you wanna boil it down, they are just doing so by working the system and any loopholes/allowances. They are profiting off the work/IP/populatiry of GW to make money with products they change just enough to claim legal ambiguity.

. How is this any better then myself casting a couple of extra melta guns for myself off the one I bought to use in my army or put on the squad i just bought from GW? I'm making a few copy components to add to models I have or will purchase from GW, they are making an income off of spoofing IP...

Luna, I definitely agree that selling recasted stuff and parading them as official stuff is wrong; don't get me wrong there. However I was under the impression that this is about recasting in general and for personal use I've got no beef with it. From the OP throughout the thread this has been somewhat a conglomeration of issues all revolving around the general idea of recasting.

Same deal with if you like to grow and smoke marijuana; sure there are legal ways to get it and its largely illegal - but that doesn't mean you're automatically "wrong" or a "thief". I do not think lesser of the GW staff who put up how to recast small bitz or that its wrong.

But for personal use I really have no beef. Also, although I've never done it personally, from what I've read and seen about recasting its that its a time and skill intensive process. Unless done as a team, recasting seems like a very small scale operation and by its nature can't really affect GW.

The nature of the operation isn't really the issue here however, considering that the original topic was personal recasting.

The main problem that the anti-recasting camp has is that they believe it deprives GW(and thus, the sculptors), of being rewarded for their own hard work. For every meltagun cast, you don't buy a meltagun, and this takes money away from the people who spent that time designing it, and producing the original.

In that, I fully see where they're coming from, and acknowledge it. Regardless of the scale of the casting, or the the minute loss to GW's earnings, that minute loss is still there.

Kilkrazy wrote:
You have a pretty selective way of reading threads.

Firstly, the so-called 'anti-recasting camp' are devoted to the legals laws of modern civilisation, not their own prejudices.

Secondly, the pro-recasting group are united not by religion, race or other belief but simply by their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

It's not up to you to have a problem or not to have a problem about people copying stuff, unless it's your stuff. Society as a whole has already decided that copying stuff without permissoin is wrong. You as a creator can allow people to copy your own stuff, and you have no rights over someone else's stuff.

I beg to differ, as a whole refers to a unanimous decision. As long as there is at least one who is against it, then it's not as a whole. Also I find that a lot of people use torrents and find nothing wrong with them.

Please leave your bias outside of this thread.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Cane wrote: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.

You have a pretty selective way of reading threads.

Firstly, the so-called 'anti-recasting camp' are devoted to the legals laws of modern civilisation, not their own prejudices.

Secondly, the pro-recasting group are united not by religion, race or other belief but simply by their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

It's not up to you to have a problem or not to have a problem about people copying stuff, unless it's your stuff. Society as a whole has already decided that copying stuff without permissoin is wrong. You as a creator can allow people to copy your own stuff, and you have no rights over someone else's stuff.

I think you missed the semicolon in the definition, its not solely defined and limited to people against races or religions. Note the word 'especially'.

As for your other points, thats all very debatable and argued throughout the thread. Also, if the Dakka poll and this topic means anything, most people are in fact in favor of recasting in some fashion than following GW propaganda. In fact as of this post about 83% of 229 Dakkites (or whatever we're called) are in favor of recasting in some way or another.

Cane wrote:Luna, I definitely agree that selling recasted stuff and parading them as official stuff is wrong; don't get me wrong there. However I was under the impression that this is about recasting in general and for personal use I've got no beef with it. From the OP throughout the thread this has been somewhat a conglomeration of issues all revolving around the general idea of recasting.

Same deal with if you like to grow and smoke marijuana; sure there are legal ways to get it and its largely illegal - but that doesn't mean you're automatically "wrong" or a "thief". I do not think lesser of the GW staff who put up how to recast small bitz or that its wrong.

But for personal use I really have no beef. Also, although I've never done it personally, from what I've read and seen about recasting its that its a time and skill intensive process. Unless done as a team, recasting seems like a very small scale operation and by its nature can't really affect GW.

Dont get me wrong either , im sure there are rare case that deserves our sympathy to allow some recast ( broken stuff for example )
but what im trying to get at is the whole problem , letting one exceptions through no matter how justified , soon you'll face TONS of unjustified cases.

No, recasting is not an intensive process , i have 2 threads locked regarding recasting ( you can do it in your garage , alone )

Please dont drag us into this, we had questions ourselves if it could be done legally, so we went out and spent 1500$ of our own money to see what a trained IP Attorney suggested (legal advice that was paid for).

We know we are on the right side of the law, and worst thing that happens we go to court to argue it. We arent going to jail from stealing from GW, I believe all our products are new sculpts and do not have very similiar GW counterparts.

You wont ever see a CH Landraider or other kit. At the most you will see a better looking character kit then the atrocious Vulcan He'stan GW did, but it will be a new sculpt, we will have documentation and proof of the sculpting and we will call it Forge Lord or something.

Pepsi - Coca-cola
Ford Mustang - Chevrolet Camaro
Apple Ipod - Sandisk MP3 player
IBM Thinkpad - Sony Expensive Laptop

Dont get me started on after market carparts with brighter lightbulbs and the same housing...

Oh yeah, we are thinking about creating some new combi-weapons, so, does that mean we cant create and sculpt our own flamethrower combi-weapon or a melty combi, of course not...

Nick

Ketara wrote:The nature of the operation isn't really the issue here however, considering that the original topic was personal recasting.

The main problem that the anti-recasting camp has is that they believe it deprives GW(and thus, the sculptors), of being rewarded for their own hard work. For every meltagun cast, you don't buy a meltagun, and this takes money away from the people who spent that time designing it, and producing the original.

In that, I fully see where they're coming from, and acknowledge it. Regardless of the scale of the casting, or the the minute loss to GW's earnings, that minute loss is still there.

Ah, true. However by looking on Ebay and other tradesites there are hardly any models and recasters around to make a noticeable dent and in the long run doesn't matter.

However this also assumes that the recaster would have bought more meltaguns and in this sense I disagree with that argument so GW really does lose nothing unless of course the recaster was able to sell it in GW quantities. Then again people who buy recasted metlaguns; they're not looking to buy full retail so GW loses nothing from this perspective.

95% of the time, recasting is clearly wrong. Recasting for sale, recasting entire kits, and even recasting single models is wrong, in my book, as that does take money away from the hardworking sculptors who made it.

However I think that recasting difficult to acquire OOP components is fine. Note the term 'difficult to acquire'. So if you want to recast Mordians, I'd be against that, as those are easily picked up on Ebay with a little patience. However, if you wanted multiple copies gun shield from the old style heavy bolter, I don;t see anything wrong with that.

I also think that it's alright for bitz that it's impractical to acquire by any other means. One user suggested the 'beaky' marine helmets. These are only distributed one per box. If I want to do an army around them, I'd have to buy something like 50 boxes which is absurd. As it can be impossible to acquire that number of them from ebay or bitz sites(which often don't stock what you need), I think you'd be justified in recasting them.

It's true that in the latter example, you're depriving GW of the cost of your 50 boxes of marines, but to be honest, you'd never buy those 50 boxes anyway. You'd ust end up having to make do with regular marines. So in a situation such as that, I don't think anyone loses out really anyway. It might be technically illegal, but I believe that in a situation like that it would be morally acceptable, and branding someone who did it a thief is a way over the top reaction.

And chapterhouse, whilst you may or may not be legally above the law to do it( I still have my doubts, but I'm willing to take you assurance on it-I'm actually all in favour of you guys by the way), the fact is, your business came about as a result of the universe that GW writers and creators invented. You didn't invent the Salamander chapter. Someone else did. However, you are making money off of the Salamanders name, even though you played no part in their creation. And whilst you could call them the Salemanders or something, the fact and truth remains that you are running a business using a fictional world you had no part in designing.

Cane wrote:
However this also assumes that the recaster would have bought more meltaguns and in this sense I disagree with that argument so GW really does lose nothing unless of course the recaster was able to sell it in mass quantities. Likewise with people who buy recasted metlaguns; they're not looking to buy full retail.

Why must humans always deal with things only when there are visible damage to things?
what happend to reinforcing the rules that prevents the damage to be noticeable in the first place?

Thats also what this is about.

Ketara wrote:However I think that recasting difficult to acquire OOP components is fine. Note the term 'difficult to acquire'. So if you want to recast Mordians, I'd be against that, as those are easily picked up on Ebay with a little patience. However, if you wanted multiple copies gun shield from the old style heavy bolter, I don;t see anything wrong with that.

1 case alone cannot stand for everything. One might find Mordians easy to get , while one might find it hard.
You might find it hard to get hvy bolter shields, others might find it easy .
The situation are too different and too sensitive . Allowing one , would force all other cases to be allowed.
Who will have the time then to judge case by case if it is justified?

We Cannot.

@ Lunahound

using a mold to recast a broken piece I think would still be considered illegal. Why you ask? If I own a $5 bill, take a perfect photograph of it, burn it by accident, and then make a perfect reproduction, I am still counterfitting the bill. In the above listed example, you purchased the product, you received the product, you broke the product... You still have the rights to the broken piece of product that you have. Not to make a new piece.

The lawyers on the site can correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, the issues that I have in the Corporation Vs. Citizens (consumers, whatever) debate is that the law does not apply equally to citizens and the corporations. If a corporation is directly responsible for someone's death, the corporation gets fined (what amounts to a negligible amount of money, at that), whereas if a person is directly responsible for someone's death, they either go to jail or are killed themselves (depending on where the crime happened etc).

This also extends into the IP arena - For a while there, Microsoft was being penalized for a million dollars a day for IP infringement - can you imagine what impact that would have on a person if the same penalty was levied against them?

Society needs to retake the right to disolve corporations and companies that flagrantly break the law or establish penalties that reflect the crime.

niceas wrote:@ Lunahound
using a mold to recast a broken piece I think would still be considered illegal. Why you ask? If I own a $5 bill, take a perfect photograph of it, burn it by accident, and then make a perfect reproduction, I am still counterfitting the bill. In the above listed example, you purchased the product, you received the product, you broke the product... You still have the rights to the broken piece of product that you have. Not to make a new piece.

I know its wrong , but as i stated to the group that insist there are "justified cases that allows recast"
thats the only example i can think of , and already brought up , as something some what morally justified.

The answer is Luna, that no-one is really in a position to judge except ourselves. I've laid out the conditions above in which I believe re-casting is morally acceptable. If one person came to me saying, 'I only bought one gun shield and recasted the rest because I cba to find any more', I would find that morally reprehensible.

However, if they came to me and said, 'I could only find 4 after 3 months of searching, so I was forced to recast the rest to finish my project', I would find that morally acceptable.

The fact is, the law here is the ultimate arbiter of whether it's illegal or not, but when it comes down to whether it is morally acceptable or not, I believed that MUST be judged on a case by case basis.

In a murder case, the killer is usually given 25 years. But what if the killer only killed because the other guy would have killed him? If you just say that the law should be applied without taking into account any extenuating circumstances or reasons, the killer should still get 25 years anyway, self defense or no.

LunaHound wrote:I know its wrong , but as i stated to the group that insist there are "justified cases that allows recast"
thats the only example i can think of , and already brought up , as something some what morally justified.

Ah. Alright.

For those that may trot out the statement "but I can make a digital copy of my disks, because I own the rights to the IP" business, that relates to a specific decision on the part of the courts. It does not apply to the manufacture of physical product (again, I'll defer to a law degree here).

@ everyone trying to justify things - I take the stance that by making the choice to live in a particular society, you agree to abide by that societies laws. You gain all the benefits and all the restrictions that come inherent with that society. Thus, if you chose to recast, and get caught, don't go crying about how you were 'morally justified' in committing your action - you agreed to live in that society, you broke that societies laws, you therefore accept the consequences imposed by that society. Don't like your societies laws? Then seek to dispose of your society or leave.

Edit: @ Ketara: are you saying that morals are relative?

niceas wrote:
Personally, the issues that I have in the Corporation Vs. Citizens (consumers, whatever) debate is that the law does not apply equally to citizens and the corporations. If a corporation is directly responsible for someone's death, the corporation gets fined (what amounts to a negligible amount of money, at that), whereas if a person is directly responsible for someone's death, they either go to jail or are killed themselves (depending on where the crime happened etc).

The problem is, is that it's actually rather hard to send a corporation to jai, being that a corporation is an abstract legal entity, without a physical body to imprison, and also since that corporation is a abstract legal entity it's also somewhat difficult for it to be "directly responsible" for events. Of course the corporations, officers, employees and agents and investors, might be directly responsible for events, but when they are, they have been sent to jail, (perhaps not as often as you might like, but as with any originazation, individual responsibility can become somewhat diluted)

Ketara wrote:The answer is Luna, that no-one is really in a position to judge except ourselves. I've laid out the conditions above in which I believe re-casting is morally acceptable. If one person came to me saying, 'I only bought one gun shield and recasted the rest because I cba to find any more', I would find that morally reprehensible.

However, if they came to me and said, 'I could only find 4 after 3 months of searching, so I was forced to recast the rest to finish my project', I would find that morally acceptable.

The fact is, the law here is the ultimate arbiter of whether it's illegal or not, but when it comes down to whether it is morally acceptable or not, I believed that MUST be judged on a case by case basis.

In a honest and perfect world , i can find it easier to agree with you.
But knowing the people that will exploit such exceptions , i cannot.

No-one is denying the illegality of the situation. Now it has become more a matter of whether recasting under certain limited circumstances still makes a person morally wrong.

The fact is, whilst the law is often representative of morals, this is not always the case, and so one should not always judge what is morally right or wrong by what is legal and illegal.

EDIT: The whole 'morals are objective or subjective' debate was had out 5 pages or so back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

Ketara wrote:The answer is Luna, that no-one is really in a position to judge except ourselves. I've laid out the conditions above in which I believe re-casting is morally acceptable. If one person came to me saying, 'I only bought one gun shield and recasted the rest because I cba to find any more', I would find that morally reprehensible.

However, if they came to me and said, 'I could only find 4 after 3 months of searching, so I was forced to recast the rest to finish my project', I would find that morally acceptable.

The fact is, the law here is the ultimate arbiter of whether it's illegal or not, but when it comes down to whether it is morally acceptable or not, I believed that MUST be judged on a case by case basis.

In a honest and perfect world , i can find it easier to agree with you.
But knowing the people that will exploit such exceptions , i cannot.

Fair enough Luna, I understand your point, I just disagree with it. But can you understand where I'm coming from, and why I'm taking the position I am?

Ketara wrote:No-one is denying the illegality of the situation. Now it has become more a matter of whether recasting under certain limited circumstances still makes a person morally wrong.

I'm not sure why the morality of it is even an issue, in that case.

If you accept that something is illegal, then doing it anyway is wrong. Whether or not it is a moral action has no real bearing on it... by living where you do, you agree to abide by the laws of that place.

If you disagree with a given law you have the option to move somewhere that doesn't have that law, or to work within the established system to change that law. Simply breaking the law, whether or not you agree with it, and whether or not you feel bad about doing so, is wrong... because the community in which you have chosen to live has ruled that it is so.

Kilkrazy wrote:...the pro-recasting group are united by...their desire to recast stuff against the law, to the detriment of the owners, for purely selfish reasons.

I'm in the pro recasting group, and I showed an example of a recast conversion mold. It wasn't made:

Kilkrazy wrote:to recast stuff against the law,
to the detriment of the owners,
for purely selfish reasons

It was a cool Whitescars Attack Jetbike. It was made in tribute to the hobby, as a unique sculptured piece of art, and shown to educate and inspire my fellow artists, dakkites, friends, fans and gamers!

In between accusation, legitimate esoteric morality discussions and other allegations I wanted to take a moment to offer counter point, and hopefully demonstrate a positive example.

To those following the discussion in a 3rd party sense, please don't conclude that all recasting is illegal or immoral, certainly don't steal, but don't let your artistic freedom be compromised either!