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.

Shrubs wrote:

Solly wrote:I'm not gonna be paying out E200+ for 50 plastic toys the size of my small toe if I can spend E40 on moulding materials and save myself E80 that can be spent on more important things like my mortgage or food..

No one is forcing you to play this game.

Solly wrote:I know it's illegal but it's not the only illegal thing I do.
Anyone in here ever been arrested for jay-walked before??

So what's stopping you from robbing your neighbour, since you're already doing something illegal.

I understand it's an expensive hobby but that's no excuse to ignore the law. GW invests in these products in order to make a profit so they can invest more and keep this great game going.

Dont even bother using that arguement. I dont think you know how much GW makes. One person that molds guys is not gonna create the downfall of a whole business.
By the way, are you a cop?

So am I not allowed to make more seeds from the corn of seeds that I bought? If I buy an apple, am I not allowed to grow a tree from the seeds it contains? If I buy a car, and the headlight gets busted, am I not allowed to repair it myself? If I by a tire and have it put on my car, can I not change that tire on my own later? All those are examples of lost revenue by the original company or service.

Yes, it would stink if I started a business and all my customers started just casting their own models from the originals they bought from me. But you know what? That just tells me that (a) I am charging too much for my models or (b) they prefer to cast their models instead of buying them. Now what if I can't operate below their costs? Well then that market isn't business friendly, and that sucks. As long as they don't sell those models, though, there isn't much I can do about it.

Now if GW wanted to say "only GW produced models" or what not allowed in their stores and events, well then they would have a case, as those copies would not be produced GW models. But then it would fall to them to prove that you made copies of their work....

Just because something sucks doesn't mean that it isn't fair and legal. Just because something is legal/illegal doesn't mean it is dair either (there are plenty of exampels). Just because something is able to be done "legally" doesn't mean it is fair either.

I still don't see the legal issue. GW is only losing money you are not spending. However you are not legally required to spend your money on GW. Unless they can prove that what you are doing is directly harming their business, then I don't see how it could or should be illegal (and no, I do not consider you not buying more of something you already own to be hurting them directly).

Im truly depressed to be reading some of these...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jollydevil wrote:
Dont even bother using that arguement. I dont think you know how much GW makes. One person that molds guys is not gonna create the downfall of a whole business.
By the way, are you a cop?

Laws are adamantly enforced not because they want to be a pain in your a$$.
They are enforced because if there is exception for one , then everyone would follow.

Then it wouldnt be one person doing illegal things , it'll be MANY.

Skinnattittar wrote:So am I not allowed to make more seeds from the corn of seeds that I bought? If I buy an apple, am I not allowed to grow a tree from the seeds it contains? If I buy a car, and the headlight gets busted, am I not allowed to repair it myself? If I by a tire and have it put on my car, can I not change that tire on my own later? All those are examples of lost revenue by the original company or service.
Let me ask you this then , If you spend time and money hiring designers to design a model , buying machines to produce the model , and spend money on advertisement to push the product line ,
you think you can just say oh well? when someone decides to ignore all that and go replicate something made by you? I dont think you are looking at this clearly enough.
A Miniature is NOT just a lump of shaped metal. Its a product. A product that represented the labor of it been designed , been produced , been pushed publicly to be what it is.
Ever heard of people saying " Yes Rackham makes good miniatures , better than GW , but im willing to pay for GW because they are more popular hence i can find more players?" What do you think
made that possible? Ever consider that?


Yes, it would stink if I started a business and all my customers started just casting their own models from the originals they bought from me. But you know what? That just tells me that (a) I am charging too much for my models or (b) they prefer to cast their models instead of buying them. Now what if I can't operate below their costs? Well then that market isn't business friendly, and that sucks. As long as they don't sell those models, though, there isn't much I can do about it.
That argument is flawed , humans will always try to get things as cheap as possible. There will always be things that are too expensive for some people
no matter how cheap it is.

Now if GW wanted to say "only GW produced models" or what not allowed in their stores and events, well then they would have a case, as those copies would not be produced GW models. But then it would fall to them to prove that you made copies of their work....

Just because something sucks doesn't mean that it isn't fair and legal. Just because something is legal/illegal doesn't mean it is dair either (there are plenty of exampels). Just because something is able to be done "legally" doesn't mean it is fair either.

I still don't see the legal issue. GW is only losing money you are not spending. However you are not legally required to spend your money on GW. Unless they can prove that what you are doing is directly harming their business, then I don't see how it could or should be illegal (and no, I do not consider you not buying more of something you already own to be hurting them directly).
If you need something produced by GW , and you arnt purchasing it from them , and recasting it for yourself , thats the amount of money they are supposed to get but didint

LunaHound wrote:Im truly depressed to be reading some of these...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jollydevil wrote:
Dont even bother using that arguement. I dont think you know how much GW makes. One person that molds guys is not gonna create the downfall of a whole business.
By the way, are you a cop?

Laws are adamantly enforced not because they want to be a pain in your a$$.
They are enforced because if there is exception for one , then everyone would follow.

Then it wouldnt be one person doing illegal things , it'll be MANY.


The piont im trying to put out is that even if half the people buying models using molding instead, Gw would still make a ton of money. Besides, what are the chances of you getting caught? Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

Jollydevil wrote:The piont im trying to put out is that even if half the people buying models using molding instead, Gw would still make a ton of money. Besides, what are the chances of you getting caught? Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

Despite me meeting trolls on forums , despite me getting into arguments with them , i have still never say what im about to say now.

If you really cannot understand the wrong or the harm it is , i have nothing else to say to you. Or rather , i feel i'll be wasting my breath

That example is so wrong btw, you might want to think it over.

Skinnattittar wrote:Now what if I can't operate below their costs? Well then that market isn't business friendly, and that sucks.

And that's exactly why the law exists...

@ Luna : I think you are arguing something different than I am. Just because you make something, doesn't mean you have an inherent right to tell people how to use it or whether or not they can make copies of it on their own for themselves. Not only is that practically (and by that I mean the real meaning of practically, as in, practicability) impossible to do (someone could make a billion Space Marines, keep them in their basement, and no one would be the wiser and GW would be done no harm), but difficult to prove! If I make perfect recasts (hypothetical) of a GW product, I have still remade their model, but there is no way for anyone to prove it, even if I admitted to it!

Next. Just because someone makes something, doesn't mean they were willing to buy it. I have made many models I never intended to use, or painted many models I never intended to use, not because I'm stupid or whatever, but because that's what I wanted to do! So if someone is making recasts, they are more likely doing it because they like the challenge, rather than because it is cheap (it takes a lot of work and investment. I would gamble that if you spent the time recasting working at a job, it would probably make more sense to buy the models).

You also never addressed my other examples, Luna. You side skipped difficult, directly related issues, in favor of.... I'm not really sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Now what if I can't operate below their costs? Well then that market isn't business friendly, and that sucks.

And that's exactly why the law exists...

So I should start a door-to-door home dish washing service for $10 a dish (or five utensils), and if people are washing their own dishes, I should be able to sue them because they are intruding on my business?

Skinnattittar wrote: If I make perfect recasts (hypothetical) of a GW product, I have still remade their model, but there is no way for anyone to prove it, even if I admitted to it!

Is breaking the law any less wrong because you don't think you'll get caught?

Next. Just because someone makes something, doesn't mean they were willing to buy it.

In which case, not being able to recast it shouldn't be a big issue. Remember, we're talking about toy soldiers here. If they don't want it enough to pay for it, they can clearly do without it.

So if someone is making recasts, they are more likely doing it because they like the challenge, rather than because it is cheap

Not the case, from my experience. The recasters I've run across over the years were very definitely doing it because it was cheaper than buying the models new.

Skinnattittar wrote:So I should start a door-to-door home dish washing service for $10 a dish (or five utensils), and if people are washing their own dishes, I should be able to sue them because they are intruding on my business?

If you can find an applicable law that says that people have to use a dishwashing service rather than washing their own dishes, go right ahead.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote: If I make perfect recasts (hypothetical) of a GW product, I have still remade their model, but there is no way for anyone to prove it, even if I admitted to it!

Is breaking the law any less wrong because you don't think you'll get caught?

Technically, in my opinion, you're not breaking the law unless you get caught, so yes. How can you be prosecuted if it can never be proven? In the US, I don't know how the UK does it, you're innocent unless proven guilty. So basically, you don't have to do anything when accused if they can't prove you did it.

Next. Just because someone makes something, doesn't mean they were willing to buy it.

In which case, not being able to recast it shouldn't be a big issue. Remember, we're talking about toy soldiers here. If they don't want it enough to pay for it, they can clearly do without it.

Unless of course your hobby is making perfect copies of things that can already be made. So it wouldn't do you much good to make your own model, because then there is no proof that making a good casting of it could have been done in the first place! I would call the original model the control group in that experiment.

So if someone is making recasts, they are more likely doing it because they like the challenge, rather than because it is cheap

Not the case, from my experience. The recasters I've run across over the years were very definitely doing it because it was cheaper than buying the models new.

Yes, and I do my own work on my car because I say I'm trying to save money. But once you factor in all the costs and the time I spend working on my car, I'm probably lucky to be braking even. So why do I do my own work on my car? Well because I kind of like proving to myself that I can do it, and it can be fun taking a dead machine (or lumps of resin) and making a working vehicle again (or little plastic models).

insaniak wrote:So I should start a door-to-door home dish washing service for $10 a dish (or five utensils), and if people are washing their own dishes, I should be able to sue them because they are intruding on my business?

If you can find an applicable law that says that people have to use a dishwashing service rather than washing their own dishes, go right ahead.

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:The piont im trying to put out is that even if half the people buying models using molding instead, Gw would still make a ton of money. Besides, what are the chances of you getting caught? Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

Despite me meeting trolls on forums , despite me getting into arguments with them , i have still never say what im about to say now.

If you really cannot understand the wrong or the harm it is , i have nothing else to say to you. Or rather , i feel i'll be wasting my breath

That example is so wrong btw, you might want to think it over.

Please dont give me that crap. Also, thats a perfect example of how it works. Are you trying to say that apple does not make money off of ipods? are you going to really use that comment of utter stupidity?

Jollydevil wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:The piont im trying to put out is that even if half the people buying models using molding instead, Gw would still make a ton of money. Besides, what are the chances of you getting caught? Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

Despite me meeting trolls on forums , despite me getting into arguments with them , i have still never say what im about to say now.

If you really cannot understand the wrong or the harm it is , i have nothing else to say to you. Or rather , i feel i'll be wasting my breath

That example is so wrong btw, you might want to think it over.

Please dont give me that crap. Also, thats a perfect example of how it works. Are you trying to say that apple does not make money off of ipods? are you going to really use that comment of utter stupidity?

Apple generally doesn't give a crap about e-piracy, they already made most of their money when you bought your iPod. Their main revenue comes from the sheet irony of their own existence, and kicking puppies.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:The piont im trying to put out is that even if half the people buying models using molding instead, Gw would still make a ton of money. Besides, what are the chances of you getting caught? Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

Despite me meeting trolls on forums , despite me getting into arguments with them , i have still never say what im about to say now.

If you really cannot understand the wrong or the harm it is , i have nothing else to say to you. Or rather , i feel i'll be wasting my breath

That example is so wrong btw, you might want to think it over.

Please dont give me that crap. Also, thats a perfect example of how it works. Are you trying to say that apple does not make money off of ipods? are you going to really use that comment of utter stupidity?

Apple generally doesn't give a crap about e-piracy, they already made most of their money when you bought your iPod. Their main revenue comes from the sheet irony of their own existence, and kicking puppies.

Thats the piont. theyre making money anyways. Not to mention loads of it.

Jollydevil wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:The piont im trying to put out is that even if half the people buying models using molding instead, Gw would still make a ton of money. Besides, what are the chances of you getting caught? Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

Despite me meeting trolls on forums , despite me getting into arguments with them , i have still never say what im about to say now.
If you really cannot understand the wrong or the harm it is , i have nothing else to say to you. Or rather , i feel i'll be wasting my breath
That example is so wrong btw, you might want to think it over.

Please dont give me that crap. Also, thats a perfect example of how it works. Are you trying to say that apple does not make money off of ipods? are you going to really use that comment of utter stupidity?

Apple generally doesn't give a crap about e-piracy, they already made most of their money when you bought your iPod. Their main revenue comes from the sheet irony of their own existence, and kicking puppies.

Thats the piont. theyre making money anyways. Not to mention loads of it.

But "illegally" downloading music is still illegal. You're taking music that you didn't pay for that the maker said "if you want out music, you have to pay us for it." Which is very different from copying something you already own.

Skinnattittar wrote:You also never addressed my other examples, Luna. You side skipped difficult, directly related issues, in favor of.... I'm not really sure.

Yes i didnt reply to this:

Just because something sucks doesn't mean that it isn't fair and legal. Just because something is legal/illegal doesn't mean it is dair either (there are plenty of exampels). Just because something is able to be done "legally" doesn't mean it is fair either.

I dont know how you want that to be addressed ^^

Jollydevil wrote:Please dont give me that crap. Also, thats a perfect example of how it works. Are you trying to say that apple does not make money off of ipods? are you going to really use that comment of utter stupidity?

Your original quote:

Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

I said your example is wrong because , of course apple doesnt lose money from people downloading illegal mp3s like off limewire example you give.
No , the artists are the one that loses money.
Something related that might make Apple Ipod lose money , more appropriately would be say , Chinese bootlegged fake ipods.

See it now?

LunaHound wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:You also never addressed my other examples, Luna. You side skipped difficult, directly related issues, in favor of.... I'm not really sure.

Yes i didnt reply to this:

Just because something sucks doesn't mean that it isn't fair and legal. Just because something is legal/illegal doesn't mean it is dair either (there are plenty of exampels). Just because something is able to be done "legally" doesn't mean it is fair either.

I dont know how you want that to be addressed ^^

Jollydevil wrote:Please dont give me that crap. Also, thats a perfect example of how it works. Are you trying to say that apple does not make money off of ipods? are you going to really use that comment of utter stupidity?

Your original quote:

Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

I said your example is wrong because , of course apple doesnt lose money from people downloading illegal mp3s like off limewire example you give.
No , the artists are the one that loses money.
Something related that might make Apple Ipod lose money , more appropriately would be say , Chinese bootlegged fake ipods.

See it now?

Either way the artist is still making a profit.

Skinnattittar wrote:But "illegally" downloading music is still illegal. You're taking music that you didn't pay for that the maker said "if you want out music, you have to pay us for it." Which is very different from copying something you already own.

Earlier i mentioned , a miniature is not just a lump of shaped material. You dont own the copy right of the miniature you purchased.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jollydevil wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:You also never addressed my other examples, Luna. You side skipped difficult, directly related issues, in favor of.... I'm not really sure.

Yes i didnt reply to this:

Just because something sucks doesn't mean that it isn't fair and legal. Just because something is legal/illegal doesn't mean it is dair either (there are plenty of exampels). Just because something is able to be done "legally" doesn't mean it is fair either.

I dont know how you want that to be addressed ^^

Jollydevil wrote:Please dont give me that crap. Also, thats a perfect example of how it works. Are you trying to say that apple does not make money off of ipods? are you going to really use that comment of utter stupidity?

Your original quote:

Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

I said your example is wrong because , of course apple doesnt lose money from people downloading illegal mp3s like off limewire example you give.
No , the artists are the one that loses money.
Something related that might make Apple Ipod lose money , more appropriately would be say , Chinese bootlegged fake ipods.

See it now?

Either way the artist is still making a profit.

Ok i give up.

Skinnattittar wrote:Technically, in my opinion, you're not breaking the law unless you get caught

That's a mind-boggling opinion, to be honest.

'Innocent until proven guilty' is a mechanism to ensure a fair trial. It simply means that a court of law is supposed to assume that you're innocent until they find out for sure otherwise. It doesn't mean you're not actually breaking the law when you do something illegal.

Unless of course your hobby is making perfect copies of things that can already be made. So it wouldn't do you much good to make your own model, because then there is no proof that making a good casting of it could have been done in the first place!

The fact that you want to do something doesn't actually make it right... or legal.

I can say that my 'hobby' is pushing nails artistically into people's car tyres. That doesn't make it legal if I do it without their permission.

Yes, and I do my own work on my car because I say I'm trying to save money. But once you factor in all the costs and the time I spend working on my car, I'm probably lucky to be braking even. So why do I do my own work on my car? Well because I kind of like proving to myself that I can do it, and it can be fun taking a dead machine (or lumps of resin) and making a working vehicle again (or little plastic models).

And so, again, the fact that you want to do something doesn't automatically make it acceptable behaviour.

You're perfectly within your rights to do your own work on your car, because there is no law that says you can't. That doesn't mean that anything that you want to do should be allowed.

Well, according to you:

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Now what if I can't operate below their costs? Well then that market isn't business friendly, and that sucks.

And that's exactly why the law exists...

There is already precedent.

How is that a precedent? In what way is copyright law in any way relevant to your proposed dishwashing service?

Jollydevil wrote:
Either way the artist is still making a profit.

Tell you what , give me half of your pay check or your allowance.
Because its like , you are still making money.

LunaHound wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:But "illegally" downloading music is still illegal. You're taking music that you didn't pay for that the maker said "if you want out music, you have to pay us for it." Which is very different from copying something you already own.

Earlier i mentioned , a miniature is not just a lump of shaped material. You dont own the copy right of the miniature you purchased.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jollydevil wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:You also never addressed my other examples, Luna. You side skipped difficult, directly related issues, in favor of.... I'm not really sure.

Yes i didnt reply to this:

Just because something sucks doesn't mean that it isn't fair and legal. Just because something is legal/illegal doesn't mean it is dair either (there are plenty of exampels). Just because something is able to be done "legally" doesn't mean it is fair either.

I dont know how you want that to be addressed ^^

Jollydevil wrote:Please dont give me that crap. Also, thats a perfect example of how it works. Are you trying to say that apple does not make money off of ipods? are you going to really use that comment of utter stupidity?

Your original quote:

Its like using limewire. More than half of ipod users use it to get free songs, but apple is still making billions.

I said your example is wrong because , of course apple doesnt lose money from people downloading illegal mp3s like off limewire example you give.
No , the artists are the one that loses money.
Something related that might make Apple Ipod lose money , more appropriately would be say , Chinese bootlegged fake ipods.

See it now?

Either way the artist is still making a profit.

Ok i give up.

Good. Theres no use in argueing this, as im going to stick to my opinion, and you yours.

@ Lune : No, I meant this:
"So am I not allowed to make more seeds from the corn of seeds that I bought? If I buy an apple, am I not allowed to grow a tree from the seeds it contains? If I buy a car, and the headlight gets busted, am I not allowed to repair it myself? If I by a tire and have it put on my car, can I not change that tire on my own later? All those are examples of lost revenue by the original company or service."

I talk about other very similar examples and you started talking about employees and advertisement, then repeated your argument but never really addressed the issue. Apples, corn seeds, and cars are all products. Their replication and maintenance are all part of the profit margin of their respective companies. Just because you have an idea doesn't mean you're entitled to profit from it, it just means you're entitled to others directly profiting from it. But if an individual decides not to partake, but to use your idea anyway, as long as they do not profit, you're SOL.

Example. Toro makes a special snow blower auger and charges $1000 per unit, but it only cost them $50. I'm a homeowner who wants the benefits of that auger. I decide I don't want to spend $1000 to but that auger, but I look at one at the dealership and figure out how to make my own. In my opinion, Toro will just have to suck it up because I decided it was more worth my while to make their auger than to pay them for it. If they end up making $10 per unit in the end (averaging out against the number they produced) because everyone decided to make their own augers instead of spending $1000 on theirs, that's Toro's fault, not the individuals.

No , that isnt a matter of opinion . You are comparing wrong things no matter how you want to word it.

I just give up because i cant get through you.

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:
Either way the artist is still making a profit.

Tell you what , give me half of your pay check or your allowance.
Because its like , you are still making money.

Your not seeing my piont. These dudes are millionaires. They dont even notice.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Lune : No, I meant this:
"So am I not allowed to make more seeds from the corn of seeds that I bought? If I buy an apple, am I not allowed to grow a tree from the seeds it contains? If I buy a car, and the headlight gets busted, am I not allowed to repair it myself? If I by a tire and have it put on my car, can I not change that tire on my own later? All those are examples of lost revenue by the original company or service."

None of these have anything to do with copyright.

I decide I don't want to spend $1000 to but that auger, but I look at one at the dealership and figure out how to make my own.

And that's fine. Because you're not just copying theirs. You're making your own based on their idea.


Ideas aren't covered by copyright. Physical creations are.

LunaHound wrote:No , that isnt a matter of opinion . You are comparing wrong things no matter how you want to word it.

I just give up because i cant get through you.

It is a matter of opinion. So please dont keep this going, becuase their are two sides to this arguement, and niether will budge.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Lune : No, I meant this:
"So am I not allowed to make more seeds from the corn of seeds that I bought? If I buy an apple, am I not allowed to grow a tree from the seeds it contains? If I buy a car, and the headlight gets busted, am I not allowed to repair it myself? If I by a tire and have it put on my car, can I not change that tire on my own later? All those are examples of lost revenue by the original company or service."

Ok , first , im going to ignore the seed part. Because by design , no one can claim the the creator of those seeds.
If you buy a car , and head lights and tire needs replacement , you are allowed to. What you arnt allowed to is reproduce the car .
The lost revenue you mentioned by changing it with another brand replacement , would be closer to say you use none GW Glue to fix it.

I talk about other very similar examples and you started talking about employees and advertisement, then repeated your argument but never really addressed the issue. Apples, corn seeds, and cars are all products. Their replication and maintenance are all part of the profit margin of their respective companies. Just because you have an idea doesn't mean you're entitled to profit from it, it just means you're entitled to others directly profiting from it. But if an individual decides not to partake, but to use your idea anyway, as long as they do not profit, you're SOL.

Example. Toro makes a special snow blower auger and charges $1000 per unit, but it only cost them $50. I'm a homeowner who wants the benefits of that auger. I decide I don't want to spend $1000 to but that auger, but I look at one at the dealership and figure out how to make my own. In my opinion, Toro will just have to suck it up because I decided it was more worth my while to make their auger than to pay them for it. If they end up making $10 per unit in the end (averaging out against the number they produced) because everyone decided to make their own augers instead of spending $1000 on theirs, that's Toro's fault, not the individuals
Thats interesting , so if everyone does what you do , (taking other's concept and producing your own) What would happen to the original producer of the concept you steal?


.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jollydevil wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:
Either way the artist is still making a profit.

Tell you what , give me half of your pay check or your allowance.
Because its like , you are still making money.

Your not seeing my piont. These dudes are millionaires. They dont even notice.

lol i see your point trust me , its things like this i just... lol'd

For you guys that says " its not illegal if no one knows , or its ok because its not noticeable "
just keep telling yourself that makes it "right".

LunaHound wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Lune : No, I meant this:
"So am I not allowed to make more seeds from the corn of seeds that I bought? If I buy an apple, am I not allowed to grow a tree from the seeds it contains? If I buy a car, and the headlight gets busted, am I not allowed to repair it myself? If I by a tire and have it put on my car, can I not change that tire on my own later? All those are examples of lost revenue by the original company or service."

Ok , first , im going to ignore the seed part. Because by design , no one can claim the the creator of those seeds.
If you buy a car , and head lights and tire needs replacement , you are allowed to. What you arnt allowed to is reproduce the car .
The lost revenue you mentioned by changing it with another brand replacement , would be closer to say you use none GW Glue to fix it.

I talk about other very similar examples and you started talking about employees and advertisement, then repeated your argument but never really addressed the issue. Apples, corn seeds, and cars are all products. Their replication and maintenance are all part of the profit margin of their respective companies. Just because you have an idea doesn't mean you're entitled to profit from it, it just means you're entitled to others directly profiting from it. But if an individual decides not to partake, but to use your idea anyway, as long as they do not profit, you're SOL.

Example. Toro makes a special snow blower auger and charges $1000 per unit, but it only cost them $50. I'm a homeowner who wants the benefits of that auger. I decide I don't want to spend $1000 to but that auger, but I look at one at the dealership and figure out how to make my own. In my opinion, Toro will just have to suck it up because I decided it was more worth my while to make their auger than to pay them for it. If they end up making $10 per unit in the end (averaging out against the number they produced) because everyone decided to make their own augers instead of spending $1000 on theirs, that's Toro's fault, not the individuals
Thats interesting , so if everyone does what you do , (taking other's concept and producing your own) What would happen to the original producer of the concept you steal?


.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jollydevil wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:
Either way the artist is still making a profit.

Tell you what , give me half of your pay check or your allowance.
Because its like , you are still making money.

Your not seeing my piont. These dudes are millionaires. They dont even notice.

lol i see your point trust me , its things like this i just... lol'd

For you guys that says " its not illegal if no one knows , or its ok because its not noticeable "
just keep telling yourself that makes it "right".

oh please. who actually uses conscienses these days?

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Lune : No, I meant this:
"So am I not allowed to make more seeds from the corn of seeds that I bought? If I buy an apple, am I not allowed to grow a tree from the seeds it contains? If I buy a car, and the headlight gets busted, am I not allowed to repair it myself? If I by a tire and have it put on my car, can I not change that tire on my own later? All those are examples of lost revenue by the original company or service."[/quote
None of these have anything to do with copyright.

I decide I don't want to spend $1000 to but that auger, but I look at one at the dealership and figure out how to make my own.

And that's fine. Because you're not just copying theirs. You're making your own based on their idea.
Ideas aren't covered by copyright. Physical creations are.

... actually ideas ARE what copyrights ARE. It's what Vanilla Ice got in trouble for. Hollywood made a really boring movie called Flash of Genius about that exact thing. If I perfectly recreate the AC-DC album but at 5% slower tempo and start selling it I'm still infringing on their copyright. Heck, even if I use all their lyrics, with totally different music, and replace a few words, I'm still infringing on their copyright if I start selling their music!

Now if we're going to argue simple "legality," whether something is legal as opposed to logical and/or moral, remember, things like slavery were once legal. I know, it's a cliche counter but I can't think of anything more recent that has been over turned without directly bringing up Hitler.

Skinnattittar wrote:... actually ideas ARE what copyrights ARE.

No, sorry, it's not.

If I perfectly recreate the AC-DC album but at 5% slower tempo and start selling it I'm still infringing on their copyright.

Yes, because you're copying their music. Not because you're copying the idea of their music.


Copyright relates to actual things, not ideas.

Ideas are covered by patent law, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Heck, even if I use all their lyrics, with totally different music, and replace a few words, I'm still infringing on their copyright if I start selling their music!

Yes, because you're using the lyrics they wrote.

Now if we're going to argue simple "legality," whether something is legal as opposed to logical and/or moral, remember, things like slavery were once legal. I know, it's a cliche counter but I can't think of anything more recent that has been over turned without directly bringing up Hitler.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, to be honest. What is 'right' is defined by the laws of wherever you live. That's what laws are for.

If you don't agree with a given law, that's up to you. That doesn't make it 'right' to just ignore it. Particularly not if you live in a democratic society where you have the ability to get laws changed.

Jollydevil wrote:oh please. who actually uses conscienses these days?

Oh trust me , this is why i wanted to leave the discussion , because i know it'll end up with this been the bare bones.

Like i said and like you said. The conscience to follow or not follow the law.
Because for you , no one know = legal.
But for me , something is illegal the moment you chose to break the rules.

@ Luna : Actually, yes people do. If I'm using an ancient strain of apples, no one owns it. But when you go to a store 9/10 times you're buying an engineered product, a selectively developed apple or corn or whatever seed. However by owning it you have the option of reproducing it, albeit in a somewhat easier method of simple placing its offspring in the ground, which may or may not have been the producer's intent.

With the car headlight, my example is that you are going to re-manufacture a replacement for your own use to repair a broken product that the original producer supplies. When a company makes a car they factor in the future revenue of maintenance into the price, which consequently effects how many and what kinds of employees they will hire in the future (you don't need mechanics if no-one is going to bring their cars to you to be fixed). So by repairing your headlight you are making people unemployed (in reality, car companies know only a certain percentage of people will be foolish enough to bring their cars to the dealership for repairs, and base their business practices off of that).

They are perfectly applicable examples. If I start a miniature business and make models, I had better make my models cheap enough and of quality enough for people to be willing to buy them from me instead of making their own. In the US, you are not required to buy anything from someone if you want it. If you can make a perfect replication of it on your own, you can do that as long as you don't say if was your idea or profit from it in a business sense (i.e.: selling it or using it to supply services). If people are more willing to only buy one and then copy it or make from scratch their own models that look exactly like mine, but they aren't profiting from it or saying it was their idea, I'm SOL and so are my employees. Why? Either because I suck a business or because the market wasn't condusive to my sort of business. It's why you don't see a door-to-door dish washing service and what not. It's because they're unprofitable ideas! Having an idea does not entitle you to being able to profit from it.