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.

Pol: I think it's less Janth's "IP cred" and more just someone having been doing some reading and thinkin they are a lawyer. If that.

LunaHound wrote:Yes and it goes into detail even more , to why a piece of plastic deserves to have gone to such a great length to be protected ?

Because companies have lobbied and litigated until the law says so. As I said, you won't find "Thou shalt not infringe intellectual property" amongst the ten commandments. You can argue (as those companies do) that IP violation hurts all consumers. But it really doesn't seem to. It seems to hurt companies more than consumers, actually. I mean, there haven't been less artists, less inventions, less material progress despite the vast phenomenon of IP violation. And even poor little GW hasn't gone out of business yet.

the_Armyman wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Can you tell me ALL the reasons why you wont steal a box off a shelf?

I already answered that in my original post. You never answered any of my questions. Have you ever knowingly broken the law? If so, then how did you justify it to yourself? If not, then once again, tell your Father I really liked his work on the Grand Canyon.

Whats your question? no im not Jesus or a reincarnation of Jesus ( oh wait Christianity doesnt support reincarnation )

I have broken the law once in my life. I stole a tiny plastic teddy bear from those board games when i was grade 2.

I dont justify it to myself , i accepted the truth that i stoled , and lived with memory of it , and went on living without doing wrong on purpose again.

grizgrin wrote:Pol: I think it's less Janth's "IP cred" and more just someone having been doing some reading and thinkin they are a lawyer. If that.

You can believe what you want, my friend. I don't feel obliged to somehow prove it to you, assuming you would find any sort of proof that I could offer convincing.

LunaHound wrote:I have broken the law once in my life.

Okay, so you don't drive yet.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I have broken the law once in my life.

Okay, so you don't drive yet.

Im assuming you wanted to discuss the breaking the speed limit , not stoping at stop sign , running a red light at night when no one is around ?

I look at rules different then most people . I dont see it as an inhibition to our action.
I see it as a reminder , a caution to why the rule was made in the first place.

In other words , i respect them.

LunaHound wrote:I look at rules different then most people . I dont see it as an inhibition to our action.
I see it as a reminder , a caution to why the rule was made in the first place.

But that's not what they are. They signify laws that are to be obeyed under threat of coercive force. Why not just say that the little C or TM or R is merely a reminder or caution?

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:I have broken the law once in my life.

Okay, so you don't drive yet.

QFT .

I was stuck at a broken light in the left turn lane once... think about this for a second because it is against the law to leave the lane. SO, I decided to take it safe and turn right and go straight instead of risking a left turn. I was obviously not intentionally trying to break the law, and I even took it into consideration.

Guess what though... There was a sheriff that saw me do this, and he pulled me over and ticketed me. The officer had not seen me waiting there so for all he knew I just didn't care. I explained the situation to them, and they decided to put a note, and have me take care of it through a quick phone call. The light was broken, and the city should know that in it's records.

This is how I feel about casting the small stuff. It isn't a matter of being "evil" it involves life and the practicalities involved in it. No I am not going to climb that tree to get that egg, it is nonsense to expect this type of stiff upper lip from everyone, although it does make for some pretty funny characters.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I look at rules different then most people . I dont see it as an inhibition to our action.
I see it as a reminder , a caution to why the rule was made in the first place.

But that's not what they are. They signify laws that are to be obeyed under threat of coercive force. Why not just say that the little C or TM or R is merely a reminder or caution?

Because there are people that breaks the law on purpose . Infact they thrive on going against it eg: triads. ( of course and other stuff in varying degrees )

If you intentionally run a red light or stop sign you have intentionally broken the law. I get what you're saying: there is no criminal cartel dedicated to running stop signs whereas there are groups who make fortunes off of IP violations. But no one in this thread--even Cheese--is a part of a criminal cartel masterminding the wargaming black market. That's not what this thread is about.

LunaHound wrote:I have broken the law once in my life.

Then I contend you're a liar or someone with a really, really poor memory. Never jaywalked? Never taken a condiment packet from a restaurant you didn't patronize? Never dropped the tiniest sliver of paper on a sidewalk, even if by accident? I'm really trying to wrap my head around the savior Himself walking on Dakka.

Manchu wrote:I'm also a lawyer, actually, and am not too intimidated by someone who has the same degree as me.

And what exactly is the moral underpinning? And why is it that so many people don't find it compelling?

Well, my point was your comment on arm chair legal theory is a bit overly snarky.

The moral underpinning is that the creator of a creative work has inherent rights over it's use and reproduction. This does not change when the creator is a corporate entity or the creative work is of commercial value.

Manchu wrote:I ask again, does it apply to other things in your life, like digital media?

Legally, I'm entitled to a digital copy of any physical media I own. All of my MP3s came from my own CDs, and I can prove it because I still have the physical CDs.

I'm a software engineer. I make my living selling intellectual property. When enough people pirate my company's software, my friends get laid off. You better believe I hold myself to the same standard with other people's intellectual property.

Here, I think, is Cheese's basic point:

Why should consumers be responsible to companies when companies are not responsible to consumers?

Certain the burden on the company should be greater?

In what way is the company not responsible to the consumer? They have produced something that people want to buy. This is the essence of responsibility to a consumer - to allow them to consume. If their sales model does not fit the buying power of a sixteen-year-old, well, that's just too bad. It doesn't entitle that sixteen year-old to then pirate their property.

Put another way, I think boats are neat. I'd like a yacht. Unfortunately, I can't afford one. Does that mean that the yachting companies are somehow at fault, and that I should just steal one?

Manchu wrote:
These days, however, technology is putting the power back into the hands of the consumers. People who feel disenfranchised politically are voting with their computers by downloading digital media illegally. The point is that many people--probably most people--do not think this is morally wrong. If we lived in a pure democracy, it wouldn't be illegal.

I disagree. If we lived in this Utopian pure democracy that you suggest, we'd lose access to much of the art and music that we take for granted. Jes Goodwin doesn't sculpt the minis that we all love solely out of the goodness of his heart, he does it because he has children to feed, and bills to pay. If it was suddenly legal for anyone to start making copies of GW figures, and giving them away (not selling them), how much longer do you think they'd bother producing them? They'd sell ten models, and other people would just give the rest away.

Certainly some artists have found a way to use digital distribution successfully. Some bands have websites where you can download their music, and then pay them what you think it is worth. Others give away their stuff for free on MySpace. This is their choice. The right to choose how to distribute your art belongs to the creator, not the consumer.


By the way, you can get a pack of 5 meltas from GWs bits service for $6.50 US (or close to that). This is hardly highway robbery.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
I'm not causing GW employees to lose jobs, I'm not selling recasts, and I'm not making a dent in their sales.

Keep telling yourself that if it lets you sleep better at night. I've certainly lost any respect I may have had for you. You might think that you're not costing anyone their job, but you're contributing to it. You're casting your own stuff, other people are casting their own stuff. And, if this wasn't possible, you would have spent that money (don't try denying this), and so would they. At some point, the cumulative impact of the lost money due to your theft and other recaster's theft adds up and someone gets laid off.

@Manchu: you shouldn't feel obliged to do much. it's a net forum.

the_Armyman wrote:
Then I contend you're a liar or someone with a really, really poor memory. Never jaywalked? Never taken a condiment packet from a restaurant you didn't patronize? Never dropped the tiniest sliver of paper on a sidewalk, even if by accident? I'm really trying to wrap my head around the savior Himself walking on Dakka.

I find this so funny , why?

Just as you find it hard to believe someone can find it so relaxing and easy to not break the law , i find it hard to believe you ( someone opposite of me ) exists.
Believe it or not its up to you as it doesnt effect me one bit. How ever just be honest to yourself , and know not everyone breaks the law.
So dont bother with "i'll do it because everyone does it!" <-- i call that lieing to one's self.

Anyways while replying to this thread i have finished my deff dred , look forward to it!

Redbeard wrote:Keep telling yourself that if it lets you sleep better at night. I've certainly lost any respect I may have had for you. You might think that you're not costing anyone their job, but you're contributing to it. You're casting your own stuff, other people are casting their own stuff. And, if this wasn't possible, you would have spent that money (don't try denying this), and so would they. At some point, the cumulative impact of the lost money due to your theft and other recaster's theft adds up and someone gets laid off.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a... wait a tick.

The way I see it is that customers are pretty much demanding GW to include better sprues in general. I understand that they sell these extra bits, but I would not be one of the people buying these products. As I have said before, you can actually be denied access to tournaments because you have made your own bits, GW makes this pretty clear. I would love to be able to modify my models with my own styles, but GW elitism simply does not allow me to do that.

If I was allowed by GW to bring in my own bits by their rules I would have NO problem with it. For me it sounds like the consumers are just fixing a mistake that GW has made w/o having to resort for GW to fix these problems, they have a pretty bad record of fixing problems. Sure, they are selling a product to fix anything that could be wrong, but that is like selling me pieces that should be included anyway. If I looked at the codex and looked at the sets, I would find that nearly every product is designed to create more purchases... what happened to just buying something?

I just want to play 1000 point games, and that should be entirely feasible to do w/o resorting to extra bits and all of this nonsense, after all I paid the high cost GW asked of me for this product AND I have to put the model together and paint it as well. At what point am I not supposed to be offended by GW business practices?

"Note"
Saying that your customers are wrong is tantamount to saying yes please we want to go out of business. That is the core of sales, and it always will be.

Redbeard wrote: You might think that you're not costing anyone their job, but you're contributing to it. You're casting your own stuff, other people are casting their own stuff. And, if this wasn't possible, you would have spent that money (don't try denying this), and so would they. At some point, the cumulative impact of the lost money due to your theft and other recaster's theft adds up and someone gets laid off.

I, again, really fail to see how recasting a few bits is any worse than using another companies GS to sculpt your own bits. I have no obligation to pay for anyone's job to exist. If GW had robots that could sculpt things all on their own for cheaper, their sculpters would get laid off in a heartbeat. Don't try to sell your stuff, and keep it at a few bits and I don't know what's so terrible. It shouldn't be illegal for me to copy one tiny detail on a model one way, but not in another way. That's just stupid.

Polonius wrote:Well, my point was your comment on arm chair legal theory is a bit overly snarky.

You're probably right and that was wrong of me. But it doesn't excuse the threadbare analysis that tends to misrepresent the field in which he works.

Polonius wrote:The moral underpinning is that the creator of a creative work has inherent rights over it's use and reproduction. This does not change when the creator is a corporate entity or the creative work is of commercial value.

That is the stated argument and it makes pretty good sense--if that's what actually happened. In reality, a company like GE hires hundreds if not thousands of inventors to create products that will never get marketed simply to create patents that prevent other individuals/companies from selling them.

Redbeard wrote:In what way is the company not responsible to the consumer? They have produced something that people want to buy. This is the essence of responsibility to a consumer - to allow them to consume. If their sales model does not fit the buying power of a sixteen-year-old, well, that's just too bad. It doesn't entitle that sixteen year-old to then pirate their property.

I agree. Never said otherwise. I was just framing the issue for more a succinct debate than it was getting.

Redbeard wrote:I disagree. If we lived in this Utopian pure democracy that you suggest, we'd lose access to much of the art and music that we take for granted. Jes Goodwin doesn't sculpt the minis that we all love solely out of the goodness of his heart, he does it because he has children to feed, and bills to pay. If it was suddenly legal for anyone to start making copies of GW figures, and giving them away (not selling them), how much longer do you think they'd bother producing them? They'd sell ten models, and other people would just give the rest away.

Again, I'm not purporting that we should live in a pure democracy. Nor that there are not practical implications of IP, which you have described well enough for our purposes here. I am suggesting that the practical implications are the basis for the laws rather than moral ones. In fact, companies do not exist so that employees can feed their children. In the US at least, the sole legal purpose of a corporation is to make money for shareholders.

LunaHound wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:
Then I contend you're a liar or someone with a really, really poor memory. Never jaywalked? Never taken a condiment packet from a restaurant you didn't patronize? Never dropped the tiniest sliver of paper on a sidewalk, even if by accident? I'm really trying to wrap my head around the savior Himself walking on Dakka.

I find this so funny , why?

Just as you find it hard to believe someone can find it so relaxing and easy to not break the law , i find it hard to believe you ( someone opposite of me ) exists.
Believe it or not its up to you as it doesnt effect me one bit. How ever just be honest to yourself , and know not everyone breaks the law.
So dont bother with "i'll do it because everyone does it!" <-- i call that lieing to one's self.

You actually believe that you've never broken a law...any law... How quaint and self-delusional. Okay, I think I've taken this convo about as far as I can. Out before thread lock

I have not even recast anything yet, and people are all over me saying I've got no morals and I don't deserve respect? Christ, I won't do it if everyone's going to get all butthurt over it. I just don't see the harm in recasting OOP minis.

Wrexasaur wrote:The way I see it is that customers are pretty much demanding GW to include better sprues in general.

Wrexasaur wrote:Saying that your customers are wrong is tantamount to saying yes please we want to go out of business.

QFT. And how do consumers put pressure on a company? By not buying their products. Now that's pretty black and white. People still want the products and so we can't just imagine (what so many have charged me with imagining) a Utopian world where consumers are content to either accept or reject whatever a company offers them. Recasting may primarily be an act of "piracy" (a merely metaphorical description despite what DVD warnings tell you) but it is also incidentally (and by that I also mean unconsciously) an act of protest.

Manchu wrote:Again, I'm not purporting that we should live in a pure democracy. Nor that there are not practical implications of IP, which you have described well enough for our purposes here. I am suggesting that the practical implications are the basis for the laws rather than moral ones. In fact, companies do not exist so that employees can feed their children. In the US at least, the sole legal purpose of a corporation is to make money for shareholders.

I agree with this so much it isn't even funny.

I remember asking my Dad about how he feels about corporations in general, because I think they are basically humanities way of destroying themselves, at least in the way that they are run and dealt with now. In short, he did not answer me, but he sure as hell told me how he feels about me. Funny that...

At some point we will just be consumers, and there will be no real manufacturing jobs besides robotic engineers and maintenance people. What happens then? you think people want to lose their jobs over the availability of robotic technology? This WILL happen, and we cannot do a damn thing about it, just think of the speed that computers are advancing, at what point will all the serious programmers lose their jobs to robotic minds? Call this apocalyptic and I would have to call you naive.

I think no matter how advanced technology gets you will never be able to eliminate the human element. They make robots that can perform surgeries for instance, but you still need a doctor to diagnose you first, and then to operate the machine (pff, I think anyway, I don't think the robot does the entire thing itself but I could be wrong).

Machines can't do everything by themselves, and even if you could have robots doing all the manufacturing, packing, shipping, etc. of your product, who the hell would buy it? If you replace all the workers of the world with machines then how will anyone afford the product?

OK – Cheese, given you are in Australia, Ive wasted a little time at work to look this up (please note I am a tax lawyer, not an IP lawyer, so this is not legal advice, and if you go to jail/get fined, you cant blame Darrkt)!

Firstly, check out this site: http://www.copyright.org.au/ full of useful info. For the legally minded, this link will take you direct to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwth) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/

I do note that according to a precedential UK case, Toy soldiers (Wood v Stoddarts (1928-1935) Macg CC 294) – are ‘sculptural works’ (that is they are considered Sculptures’ under section 10(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)). This means it is classified as an ‘Artistic Work’ . On this basis I think this should cover GW’s models.

This means, to use all or a “substantial part” of an artistic work in any of the ways reserved to the copyright owner, you will need permission from the copyright owner, unless copyright has expired or a special exception applies. Failure to do so is a breach of copyright. I think that re-casting would constitute reproduction, one of the rights reserved to copyright holders.

As such, regardless of your intent not to sell, recasting is a breach of copyright in your relevant jurisdiction (the merry old land of Oz).

If you are unable to afford GW product, one possibility is to make/greenstuff a substantially different Meltagun, using NO GW parts, Then cast that and use that for your models. As GW strongly and very publically encourages customisation and modification of its models, (it sells greenstuff, it shows how to do conversions in its official books and website etc), it has arguably waived certain copyright rights in this regard. Again, I disclaim any and all legal responsibility for this comment, it is not advice, it is pure speculation as to what may be legal under the act.

Many of the comments here are very moralistic – an inherent and important issue when dealing with Copyright – after all, this is the protection of someone’s blood sweat and tears. Courts will consider moral issues when trying these cases, they will not however question the price of these goods. It wouldn’t matter if they charged $100 a meltagun, it is up to GW how they run their business, a large profit it doesn’t make stealing any more moral.

I question however: how many people on this forum have: photocopies/scans of 40k rule books? Burnt music CD’s from friends? Chipped playstation 2s? I admit to a chipped PS2 and some music, but If I like a game/cd, I buy it.

I personally buy all my GW stuff, and am planning a purchase of 5 meltaguns, and 10 alpha legion shoulderpads – via my FLGS, as I believe in supporting them, and GW. GW has created a game and models that I get a lot of joy out of, and don’t feel ripped off when I buy things. I also however earn a good salary, don’t have a mortgage or kids, and have paid off my car. Financially, dropping $15 Aus on 5 meltas isn’t going to break a sweat.

Cheers

Sidstyler wrote:I think no matter how advanced technology gets you will never be able to eliminate the human element. They make robots that can perform surgeries for instance, but you still need a doctor to diagnose you first, and then to operate the machine (pff, I think anyway, I don't think the robot does the entire thing itself but I could be wrong).

Machines can't do everything by themselves, and even if you could have robots doing all the manufacturing, packing, shipping, etc. of your product, who the hell would buy it? If you replace all the workers of the world with machines then how will anyone afford the product?

That is a problem... ISN'T IT??? Prove that these most companies are not heading in this direction though? If one company gets it they all have too, regardless of having available consumers... then they eventually fail because of it. WHEEEE!!! CIRCULAR MADNESS.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:The moral underpinning is that the creator of a creative work has inherent rights over it's use and reproduction. This does not change when the creator is a corporate entity or the creative work is of commercial value.

That is the stated argument and it makes pretty good sense--if that's what actually happened. In reality, a company like GE hires hundreds if not thousands of inventors to create products that will never get marketed simply to create patents that prevent other individuals/companies from selling them.

So? First off, patents only last for a short period of time, and are public record. If GE wants to sit on them, more power. In a decade or so anybody can use their idea.

Second, I guess I don't see how a company creates or uses it's property has any impact, barring bad faith, on how it should be protected. If I buy a plot of land solely to keep people off of it, I don't lose my rights to do that, even if I don't' use it.

You talk about threadbare analysis, but the core of IP is that it is like any other property, with the rights of use, exclusion, and alienability. I don't see the flaw in this analogy. If GW doesn't want anybody to make RT era guardsmen, than it can do that, even if it's not making any.

If your argument is more that the privileges and protections given to corporate entities are inherently immoral, than you have some grist for the mill. I think it's hard to unilaterally disparage corps, but there are some aspects to what they can do that are disturbing. That said, they still have more right to the IP than customers. There's the continental concept of individual ownership of IP that can't be completely sold, which a lot of people like. It's too far from our concept of property to really take root here though. As it stands, the owner of a thing gets to do what he wants with it.

Manchu wrote:

Janthkin wrote:I love the conspiracy theory. I mean, the basis for patents and copyrights is only in the US Constitution, and only goes back many hundreds of years - OBVIOUSLY it's all the result of a capitalist conspiracy amongst giant corporations.

Armchair legal scholars are certainly prevalent here. Modern copyright law has nearly nothing to do with the jurisprudence of the framers--except inasmuch as the Constitution itself reflects the interests of propertied, politically influential men. The laws we're talking about have almost without exception been extensively reimagined in the twentieth century and reflect the interests of the current propertied, politically influential people. I'm sorry if serious legal scholarship sounds like a conspiracy to you . . . but it doesn't actually make much of a difference.

My USPTO admission number is *****; my CA Bar number is ******. I practice IP law daily. Spare me your "serious legal scholarship" statements, along with your "armchair legal scholar" remarks. I disagree with both your comment and your conclusions, and (at present) so does most of the Federal Circuit, and most of the law journals I read.

Janthkin wrote:Companies are under zero obligation to the consumer to produce their product. The relationship, particularly with GW, is one purely of choice - they choose to produce miniatures, and you choose to participate as a consumer of their products. If you object to the price of their products, you have a variety of legal options, starting with the secondary market, and ending with NOT obtaining their products. And you instead promote an illegal option?

No, but then again you didn't bother to read the whole thread to find out. I don't disagree that companies are in fact under "zero obligation" to sell what consumers want at a price that consumers find reasonable. Indeed, I don't myself download anything illegally and have been ostracized for it. What I'm pointing out is that intellectual property does not represent some eternal moral law handed down by God. It was handed down by legislators more heavily influenced by corporations than consumers.

Oh, I read the thread. I read every thread that touches on these subjects, and I'm fairly consistent in my response. Recasting someone else's IP is illegal. No number of false analogies to music downloading or speeding will make it less so. I, personally, could care less what you do in your home; I don't work for GW or own GW stock. But don't try to pass recasting (or music downloading) off as anything but illegal, or try to rationalize the illegality away via a de minimis argument.

Polonius wrote:First off, patents only last for a short period of time, and are public record. If GE wants to sit on them, more power. In a decade or so anybody can use their idea.

You're talking about twenty years. How many patents will be of any intrinsic worth in twenty years, especially given the incredible turnover of technology we've witnessed in the twentieth century and continue to witness in the twenty first? Very few inventions are as durable as the light bulb.

Polonius wrote:You talk about threadbare analysis, but the core of IP is that it is like any other property, with the rights of use, exclusion, and alienability. I don't see the flaw in this analogy. If GW doesn't want anybody to make RT era guardsmen, than it can do that, even if it's not making any.

IP is not used currently in a way that fits the stated purpose of the Constitution. To claim otherwise is a very bad argument. In order to get back to that idea, we would have to adopt the continental inability to completely alienate that you bring up.

Polonius wrote:If your argument is more that the privileges and protections given to corporate entities are inherently immoral, than you have some grist for the mill. I think it's hard to unilaterally disparage corps, but there are some aspects to what they can do that are disturbing. That said, they still have more right to the IP than customers.

I'm not saying corporations are evil. I'm have said and continue to say that IP protection is not, in its current state in the US, a moral issue at all. Yes, corporations have "more" of right to the intellectual property. But that is merely a legal fact, a product of the power that business has over government, rather than a moral statement. You have expressed it perfectly: the owner gets to do with a thing what he wants--[b]not the inventor, artist, etc[/i].

Janthkin wrote:Spare me your "serious legal scholarship" statements, along with your "armchair legal scholar" remarks. I disagree with both your comment and your conclusions, and (at present) so does most of the Federal Circuit, and most of the law journals I read.

Then spare me your erroneous and conclusory discussion of Constitutional jurisprudence. The only people who are impressed with the "I'm a lawyer--here's my P number" line are non-lawyers--if then. I have never argued that the law is anything but what it is nor have I encouraged people to break the law (I really don't appreciate the implications about my lack of professional responsibility you're making here). I have simply called into question whether or not it is a moral issue, which I believe it is definitely not. As to my snarkiness, which Polonius called me on, I've already said that was wrong of me. Finally, the analogy to illegally downloading music is in no way a false analogy.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I have not even recast anything yet, and people are all over me saying I've got no morals and I don't deserve respect?

Ever heard of the phrase " its the thoughts that count? "

Are you going to reply my question cheese?

Who is going to buy people's legit GW OOP item when everyone deem it ok to cast their own?

Cheese Elemental wrote:I have not even recast anything yet, and people are all over me saying I've got no morals and I don't deserve respect? Christ, I won't do it if everyone's going to get all butthurt over it. I just don't see the harm in recasting OOP minis.

And that's where you lost MY respect, if indeed you had any. Do, or do not. But don't let a damn forum sway your course. This is not the place to go for letting people think for you. And certainly don't announce it like we care what you do. No one form this thread is going to show up on oyur door and waggle out fingers at you whilst reciting IP chapter and verse.

Polonius wrote:You talk about threadbare analysis, but the core of IP is that it is like any other property, with the rights of use, exclusion, and alienability. I don't see the flaw in this analogy. If GW doesn't want anybody to make RT era guardsmen, than it can do that, even if it's not making any.

Actually, IP rights are even narrower than other rights. The only right you have is the right of exclusion - if I have a patent, all I have is an enforceable right to prevent others from practicing whatever is claimed.

If your argument is more that the privileges and protections given to corporate entities are inherently immoral, than you have some grist for the mill. I think it's hard to unilaterally disparage corps, but there are some aspects to what they can do that are disturbing. That said, they still have more right to the IP than customers. There's the continental concept of individual ownership of IP that can't be completely sold, which a lot of people like. It's too far from our concept of property to really take root here though. As it stands, the owner of a thing gets to do what he wants with it.

Moral rights are interesting, but you're right - I don't see them making it into US law. Moreover, remember the Damnatus movie, that couldn't ever be released, because the creators couldn't give up their rights to GW, in spite of the derivative nature of their creation? If we're going to treat IP as property, then it needs to be fully alienable.