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.

Augustus wrote:
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!

So far, the majority of argument was based on the original " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads "

bringing your own situation where you cast your own sculpting isnt really helping.

@Insaniak
Most people do not choose the systems into which they are born. You make a presumption here, which is that the person has the means whereby they can leave their society, and live in a society that they agree with.

Not only that, but you suggest that the will of the majority is the reason laws come into effect. Many laws are in fact complicated and often unpopular things which are either pushed through on the quiet by politicians, or are enforced by dictators.

The general consensus amongst hobbyists on this forum, where people are best qualified to judge whether recasting is morally right or not, is that it is under certain circumstances.

Just out of interest Luna, do you file me under that group? I'm genuinely interested as to whether you understand where I'm coming from, even if we do disagree.

Ketara wrote:@Insaniak
Most people do not choose the systems into which they are born. You make a presumption here, which is that the person has the means whereby they can leave their society, and live in a society that they agree with.

@ Ketara - I checked out the earlier portion of the thread discussing the notions as to whether morality is objective or subjective. I will grant that you have a more sophisticated view of morals/ethics as subjective than most I come across (the more common examples being forms of cultural or ethical relativism), however, I disagree with your stance that it is subjective. Given your reasonably developed view, I doubt I can convince you to change your stance in this thread, and thus unless you are particularly interested, I will simply say that I disagree with you. Although not perfect, I strive to be a Deontologist.

Regarding your above statement, however, I would say that is a rather simplistic view. The presumption you are making is that your only option is to a: leave the society and b: to find one that you agree with. I will concur that some people are unable to make that choice - usually because the society has deemed them to be non-persons. That said, everyone else has a choice. They may not LIKE their choice, but they have a choice none-the-less. As you may be able to tell, I agree with the Socratic ideal that originates from Plato's Crito.

Ketara wrote:
Just out of interest Luna, do you file me under that group? I'm genuinely interested as to whether you understand where I'm coming from, even if we do disagree.

Which group? ( you have to be very specific for me atm , im dying from the 102 F heat. )
going to go paint some orks in another room till the heat goes down

Cane wrote: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).

If it's not worth getting worked up about, why are you using loaded terms like "bigot" to describe people advocating the legally-correct position?

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.

Use of loaded terms like "bigot" is counter-productive to legitimate discussion; you don't get to have the high ground here. All I offered was an example by which your excessively-broad application of the term is applicable to, frankly, everyone. So either you are using it in the original, perjorative sense, OR you've rendered it semantically null.

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.

What is a "hater," pray tell? Manchu and Ketara have been fairly articulate about their positions, with little need to invoke prejudicial language.

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?

Are they making copies of classic Mustang parts to do it? If so, are those parts subject to protection under copyright? If yes, then yes I do have a problem with that; it's called counterfeiting of goods. There are legitimate sources of (licensed) reproduction parts for classic cars.

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?

Another inapplicable example; the issue there is whether the military equipment manufacturers have any right to copyright in their designs, given the publically-funded nature of military tech development, and the licenses between the government & the manufacturers.

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?

Still against the law; still wrong. Is it worth breaking the law for a $2 bit?

Ketara wrote:Most people do not choose the systems into which they are born. You make a presumption here, which is that the person has the means whereby they can leave their society, and live in a society that they agree with.

I never said people have any control over where they are born.

I said that they choose to remain there. If they don't like the structure of the society in which they live, (at least in the bulk of what we call the 'western world', since most of the posters in this discussion are from the UK and US) they have the power to leave, or to change that structure.

Sure, not everyone in, say, the US has the wherewithal to pack up and move to a different country. But they do still have access to the other option to address laws they don't like without having to resort to just ignoring them.

Not only that, but you suggest that the will of the majority is the reason laws come into effect.

No I don't. I suggest that there is a mechanism in place, at least in democratic countries, for someone to effect a change of those laws.

LunaHound wrote:

Augustus wrote:
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!

So far, the majority of argument was based on the original " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads "

bringing your own situation where you cast your own sculpting isnt really helping.

Ahh Luna!

I actually like your ethical stance a lot. Perhaps we could find common ground if I said I agreed about casting exact reproductions to avoid expense? I completely concede that position, not what I am advocating. However:

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.

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

This needed to be answered IMO because it was a much broader incrimination.

I think there is a place here to also defend artistic freedom and talk about how that fits in.

Janthkin wrote:Still against the law; still wrong. Is it worth breaking the law for a $2 bit?

Well, that is an interesting question - Some people have obviously decided that due to the minute likelyhood of getting caught and prosecuted, that it IS worth breaking the law for a $2 bit.

A question that I would be interested in finding out the answer to would be if the pro-recasting camp (not including those who are casting their own models) would accept responsibility for their actions in the event that they got caught...

The price tags on the things I need are getting bigger by the day
I got a bullet with a name on it.
Bullet with a name.
The way I work so hard for things they just take away from me.
I got a bullet with a name on it.
Bullet with a name.
--"Bullet with A Name" by Nonpoint

@ niceas
Fair enough if you take a different ethical standpoint in relation to morals. Unlike others in this thread, I'm relieved that there are some people who can accept that with equinamity, rather than just labelling me morally corrupt.

I would accept responsibility for my recasting of a OOP rapier track. However, I have a feeling that if it ever went before the judge, he would throw the case out of court for being such a waste of time.

I try to never do anything I would be ashamed of. No regrets, that's the key to healthy living.

@Luna
I meant the, " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads " group.

@Insaniak
You say that I have the choice to leave. I can't leave because I quite simply don't have financial means. I can't change the law, as I am but a lowly student. The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

Ketara wrote: The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

If you're an enrolled voter, you do have influence over the system. You have an elected representative, who you can approach to discuss the changes you want, or an opposing party just looking for those issues that the people in power aren't addressing.

You also have access to the people around you. Lobbying for change starts with one person.

Ketara wrote:...The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

Yep... and, well, hmmm....

Ketara wrote:@Insaniak
You say that I have the choice to leave. I can't leave because I quite simply don't have financial means. I can't change the law, as I am but a lowly student. The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

*please note that I am not entirely serious here* Armed revolution?

Whether you believe in morals being objective or subjective, ultimately we are disagreeing on a non-moral fact. What is that non-moral fact? Whether morals exist absolutely or not. Meta-ethics aside, as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, I personally do not have issue with your stance.

My personal views on laws is quite different than what is practiced within my own society - I feel that the punishment for disobedience should be harsher, but once served, done. A second offense should bear even stricter punishment. Why is this? My countries current legal system encourages recidivism - you get caught for a crime, then you gain a criminal record, even though you have served your time. Thus you bear an invisible ball and chain as you move through life, encouraging continued recidivism. Combine having a criminal record with weak punishment and you'll find yourself knee deep in hardened criminals.

Ketara wrote:The laws in this country are passed by people who've worked in politics for a good ten years, or people with money or influence. How would you suggest I personally deal with a system in which I have no influence over and cannot leave?

Join or support an NGO working/lobbying on the issue...

Red9 wrote:

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.

I see. So democracies have no moral mandate to govern? Only states like North Korea and Burma have total unanimity of support for the government.

Also I find that a lot of burglars use burglary tools and find nothing wrong with them.

It seems that you have not thought of the wider situation beyond your immediate desires to get free stuff.

He's a fun little stick to toss onto a pile of embers.

What if someone recasts a part in clear resin for a lighting conversion?

Lanceradvanced wrote:He's a fun little stick to toss onto a pile of embers.

What if someone recasts a part in clear resin for a lighting conversion?

Then they're an evil person with no morals or ethics who deserves the death penalty. We can't let scum like that walk the earth.

Maybe my sense of morality is overly simplistic, but in a situation where the thing being gained is a pure luxury, when one person benefits at the expense (no matter how slight) of another, how is that not immoral?

You can raise all the valid points about property ownership and the questionable nature of the laws and whatnot, but it's hard to argue out of that one.

Polonius wrote:Maybe my sense of morality is overly simplistic, but in a situation where the thing being gained is a pure luxury, when one person benefits at the expense (no matter how slight) of another, how is that not immoral?

You can raise all the valid points about property ownership and the questionable nature of the laws and whatnot, but it's hard to argue out of that one.

Ppl's counter argument is:

Its not a big deal , have you never done anything wrong? going over speed limit , j walking.

In other words in this thread : 2 wrong does make a right...

(humanity have a bright future ahead)

It is a valid argument though, if you've ever driven 1mph over the speed limit, you've broken the law. Your reckless driving is putting other people's lives at risk.

Sidstyler wrote:It is a valid argument though, if you've ever driven 1mph over the speed limit, you've broken the law. Your reckless driving is putting other people's lives at risk.

First off, reckless has a legal definition. 1 mph would be, at most, careless.

Secondly, morality isn't' concerned with "What do other people get away with." The moment you start with that, you end up pretty quickly in a situation where nobody can question anybody else's behavior.

Sidstyler wrote:It is a valid argument though, if you've ever driven 1mph over the speed limit, you've broken the law.

The obvious counter-argument being that what you may or may not have done in the past is far less relevant to the discussion than your current perception of the need to abide by the laws of your society.

The whole point of punishment for breaking the law, after all, is that it's supposed to persuade you that what you did is a bad thing, and that you should follow the rules in the future...

And people's perceptions change. Even without having been punished for wrong-doing, someone who thinks that, say, downloading music is perfectly acceptable today can over time develop a completely different attitude towards it. The end result being someone who, despite having done it themselves in the past, would never contemplate doing it again.


The whole 'You don't have a right to say that something is bad unless you've never done anything wrong in your life' argument is just downright silly.

LOL and i thought i was hated on dakka

Lanceradvanced wrote:He's a fun little stick to toss onto a pile of embers.

What if someone recasts a part in clear resin for a lighting conversion?

When there's no clear part available from the manufacturer? And the number of clear pieces you're going to make doesn't exceed the number of regular pieces you've bought?

Not a problem, as far as I can see.

(Now you've got me thinking about Rhinos with working lights.....)

LunaHound wrote:

Augustus wrote:
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!

So far, the majority of argument was based on the original " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads "

bringing your own situation where you cast your own sculpting isnt really helping.

I'm just going to step in and bust a hole into the example. The re-casting of a meltagun off of a command sprue is not strictly illegal. For one the copyright GW applies covers the sprue as a whole as singular artistic work. In copying the meltagun you are not copying or making a second instance of your ability to produce a command squad. Thus the essence of the whole has itself not been replicated. This would akin to copying the "Thinkers" right buttocks. On the other hand if you selected something that is more directly related to your ability to reproduce a command squad say the apothecary parts or standard bearer you are effectively creating a second instance of what the model is intended for. Like copying the "Mona Lisa's" smile, the smile is everything. Ignoring the fact that my analogy uses works in the public domain, there is that critical component of how much you're copying that would legally come into play.

GW at a time had instructions and permission to do minor greenstuff molding/casting in their publications. This in addition to what would generally be regarded as fair use for a model kit would dictate that some degree of recasting is permitted. Even without GW's implied permission, some less substantial re-casting is strictly allowed under law, going back to the substantive value. Further the argument could be potentially made in court that because of the nature of the hobby GW prescribed to provide more leeway for recasting would be possible.

The example of Rhino headlights is once again one that falls into the bounds of legally acceptable. While you are copying a component you are not copying the work in a substantial way; you are not making it possible to create a second rhino.

Simply put not all recasting is illegal, just most.

Right, it's clearly a case by case basis.

aka_mythos wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Augustus wrote:
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!

So far, the majority of argument was based on the original " i re cast melta gun because bits are expensive and i dont want to buy bunch of command squads "

bringing your own situation where you cast your own sculpting isnt really helping.

I'm just going to step in and bust a hole into the example. The re-casting of a meltagun off of a command sprue is not strictly illegal. For one the copyright GW applies covers the sprue as a whole as singular artistic work. In copying the meltagun you are not copying or making a second instance of your ability to produce a command squad.

Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).

Janthkin wrote:Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).

Hold on a minute, I think he was on to something.

Here is the melta-gun kit (feel free to pick some up if you need them) and it includes 5 melta-guns, not 1-4.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1400031&rootCatGameStyle=

If I need only 2 melta-guns, I see no reason why his analogy would not be entirely correct. They are NOT sold individually, so recasting one could be a definite case for legality within the confines of GW's IP rules. I see no way the GW A-team Lawyers could crack down on one recasted melta-gun that could not be attained individually.

Like I said before I think it becomes criminal when you are recasting a product that they sell in the same arrangement/quantity for the same purpose.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).

Hold on a minute, I think he was on to something.

Here is the melta-gun kit (feel free to pick some up if you need them) and it includes 5 melta-guns, not 1-4.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1400031&rootCatGameStyle=

If I need only 2 melta-guns, I see no reason why his analogy would not be entirely correct. They are NOT sold individually, so recasting one could be a definite case for legality within the confines of GW's IP rules. I see no way the GW A-team Lawyers could crack down on one recasted melta-gun that could not be attained individually.

Like I said before I think it becomes criminal when you are recasting a product that they sell in the same arrangement/quantity for the same purpose.

No, he's not. It doesn't matter whether you have to get multiples of the sculpture. It doesn't matter if it's only available as part of a giant sprue, or in combination with a complete boxed set.

The only question is "is a meltagun a copyrightable sculpture?" I don't see any argument that would suggest that the answer is anything but "yes."

A melta gun is a complete, identifiable sculpture. You're not going to get a valid "incidental use" argument about a complete identifiable bit.

(Moreover, you can obtain a single meltagun if you want to. You're just choosing not to.)

No need to be all covert man, this isn't some kind of war.

http://www.thewarstore.net/product26988.html

http://www.thewarstore.net/product26988.html wrote:

I would personally never even think of buying one melta for 5$, but here it is if you want ONE melta-gun.

"Note"
I already said I do not even play SM, so this specific discussion is sort of a moot point for me, but it does provide me with some knowledge into a few facets of the War-gaming hobby on the whole. I am quite sure that GW would be one of the only companies to be at risk for this type of recasting but this seems to be due to their immense customer base and general marketing strategy.