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.

A lot of this discussion is cultural as well. In Western society we believe that company created goods belong to the company and so should the "spoils". For this reason we support large corporations and their abusive business practices with laws and are taught to toe the corporate line. Not every country/culture contains the same set of mores or holds them as dear. What is "theft" to us is a small business owner to them. Just as the people who post in this thread are unable to see what they do as anything but stealing, they are unable to see things from the same perspective. Sure there are international copyright laws like the DMCA but many countries who signed on to that were bullied into it by the Western powers who support corporate greed. Black and white perspectives are sourced from an agenda, an indoctrinated mindset or a jingoistic attitude that their set of principles are the only valuable ones and the world must be brought into line. Feth that. Life is diversity. Where is your righteous indignation when it comes to female circumcision? Roll in the tanks? Yeah, I'm sure you'll suddenly find something better to do.

Here's reality. Sales lost to recasters are lost sales to GW anyway, for whatever reason. The person that buys from a recaster wouldn't have bought from GW regardless. Its the same as if they bought Privateer Press or any other competitor's product. It's a lost sale. Now if it is so ubiquitous that it actually affects the company's bottom line, there's an indicator there of deeper issues than a shop in China making recasts. A savy company would stop and consider why so many people are choosing to purchase recasts over the legitimate product.

In any event, GW doesn't really need anyone to champion the internet for them. So the people in this thread who are vehemently doing so have their own motives, internet contrarians, ignorance of life/cultire in the majority of the world or they just like to share a feeling of Western smugness.

eBay and third party 100% definitely. Recasts I'm not sure about, not because I buy into this "it's theft" rubbish but because I'm not sure of the dubious quality of the recast. Maybe for something that was dirt cheap as a recast and very expensive from GW if I wasn't sure if it's worth buying, sort of as a trial.

If GW prices were reasonable, I'd buy from them. Since they aren't, I won't spend $50 on something that should cost maybe $30 because some suit somewhere said "Hey we can charge $50 for this and people will buy it".

While GW's prices have gotten to ridiculous levels, my FLGS has 30% off on all GW stuff for 'Club Members' which is actually cheaper than most online sellers that I've found. I do go to Ebay to buy bits like extra torsos/legs so that I can actually use all the bits in the boxes I buy.

I stay away from recasts just because I think the quality would be substandard.

I own three armies for 40k, and in the space of about 12 months all three were updated. However, I felt that the work done by GW for all three was so uninspired and lack-lustre that I spent very little money on their products.

I didn't spend a single penny on the DA release, not even on the new codex. I played a game or two with my existing models and a borrowed codex, but quickly got bored and that army hasn't been touched since this time last year.

Similarly, I skipped over the Eldar release in the summer. I felt the Wraithknight was a cheap attempt to shoe-horn an comically-sized Apoc unit into regular 40k, and the flyer kit was pretty dull. I was really looking forward to seeing new jetbikes or Aspect warriors, but these didn't materialise. I did end up buying the Ghost Warriors box at Xmas (selling the WK) as this was a reasonable deal and I do like the new Wraithguard, but I've only had a single game from this release, again using a borrowed codex.

I spent most of my hobby money and the majority of last year buying 2nd-hand Epic stuff from eBay. This is a product I am really interested in, but unfortunately GW decided not to sell it any more. Instead somebody else has been getting my money, and GW has missed an opportunity.

In the last couple of months I've started digging into the world of recasts. Mainly this is because I can get no-longer-produced Epic stuff (such as the awesome FW Thunderhawks) at surprisingly good quality, and very cheaply.
The Tyranid codex is also a factor here. As Nids are (unsurprisingly) my main army, I did buy their codex from GW. But I was so disappointed with the poor quality of this release that I refuse to spend any more on the models. There are so many arbitrary restrictions and pointless design decisions with these rules that I will not encourage GW by paying further for them.
Rather than join the competitive crowd in buying multiple Crones and Flyrants at £100+, I've decided instead to wildly experiment with this edition. So I ordered some recast Venomthropes, Lictors and Shrike wings at 20-25% of the normal RRP to mess around with. I'm working on the expectation that many of these units will only ever see a game or two, and as such I would never buy them at full price. But really it comes down to the codex. I will not encourage such a poor product by spending money to patch my army up. I don't see it as any different to GW using the issues in Finecase as an excuse to sell liquid green stuff - making money from their own poor quality.

Edit: and for anyone wondering, all the recasts I've had have all been really good quality. I know there are some poor ones out there, but I seem to have lucked out getting a good supplier first time. Once painted I literally can't tell the difference between official and not. They also offer bits - a market that GW has decided to not only stop catering to but to actively discourage from others.

 agnosto wrote:
A lot of this discussion is cultural as well. In Western society we believe that company created goods belong to the company and so should the "spoils". For this reason we support large corporations and their abusive business practices with laws and are taught to toe the corporate line. Not every country/culture contains the same set of mores or holds them as dear. What is "theft" to us is a small business owner to them. Just as the people who post in this thread are unable to see what they do as anything but stealing, they are unable to see things from the same perspective. Sure there are international copyright laws like the DMCA but many countries who signed on to that were bullied into it by the Western powers who support corporate greed. Black and white perspectives are sourced from an agenda, an indoctrinated mindset or a jingoistic attitude that their set of principles are the only valuable ones and the world must be brought into line. Feth that. Life is diversity.

Yes, it's cultural, but it's a culture we've adopted for a good reason. It encourages the creators of works to create more because they have rights to profit from them. It means creators can actually have it as their full time job. We live in a culture that supports artists because we see the value of it to society.

Where is your righteous indignation when it comes to female circumcision? Roll in the tanks? Yeah, I'm sure you'll suddenly find something better to do.

Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the title of this thread "What are the opinions in eBay, Recasts, third party models and female circumcision?"

Perhaps you should start a new topic on it if you want to discuss it and see what people think about it. I'm against slavery, child prostitution, women having no rights, etc etc etc... all things that might be culturally acceptable in some places and all things WHICH ARE NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

Here's reality. Sales lost to recasters are lost sales to GW anyway, for whatever reason. The person that buys from a recaster wouldn't have bought from GW regardless. Its the same as if they bought Privateer Press or any other competitor's product. It's a lost sale.

No. It's not the same. Privateer Press are actual contributing to the hobby by creating their own models and their own universe to house those models. The recaster is not. It's a lost sale either way, but it is not the same. One is supporting a company who is creating art (Privateer Press) the other is supporting someone who is copying art and making it harder for artists to profit from their work (recaster).

In any event, GW doesn't really need anyone to champion the internet for them

I'm not championing GW, I couldn't give a crap about GW. If you go and read my other posts on this forum you will see I disagree with a lot of what GW does and frankly I really dislike GW as a company. I would love to see more competition for 40k and Fantasy and would love to see people buying from other 3rd party manufacturers and putting genuine pressure on GW through GENUINE competition.

However I'm not biased in my opinion of recasts being wrong. Just because I don't like GW doesn't magically make me think recasts are ok for GW.

EDIT: And as I said earlier, I don't think it is black and white, if GW put something OOP, I think they rescind their right to be the sole profiteer of that product and it should then be open for anyone to recast.

Okay, how do I add topics to the poll? I want to add female circumcision to the list.

@Allseeingskink

You seem to have taken what I wrote personally for some reason. I recommend you take a step away from the keyboard. Nothing I posted named you specifically nor did I quote you.

Regarding culture: You live in such a culture but the majority of the world doesn't share that with you. I would posit that people were creating things long before copyright existed and will continue to do so regardless of whether it continues to or not.

On female circumcision: You seem to think that one crime is deserving of international policing while another isn't. That is a finely honed set of morals you possess.

On lost sales: You missed the point. A lost sale is a lost sale. People who buy recasts have no intention of buying the legitimate product so it in fact is effectively the same as if a potential client went to a competitor. The end is a net loss for GW. If the recaster didn't exist, the sale wouldn't have been made anyway.

For the record, until very recently I owned GW stock so I am far from a GW hater. I just have a broader perspective than most people on this topic due to a degree in history, a great deal of experience with law (not a lawyer) and having lived in several countries where such matters were perceived differently. That said, I know what current law is but I also know how impossible it is to enforce internationally when the cultures of other countries don't share the Wests love of corporate protectionism.

This might depend on country, but here it is illegal to sell and make recasts, but not to buy and own them.

Convenient for those who like recasts here, and effectively highlights just how contrived this whole 'theft' debate is.

I am fairly certain it is not even defined as theft, rather that word is just used in a similar way to 'feth' or 'gak' to draw attention.

Not saying that you should or shouldn't buy recasts, though. Ooooh no, I am definitely staying out of that pit of steaming vitriol.

 agnosto wrote:
@Allseeingskink

You seem to have taken what I wrote personally for some reason. I recommend you take a step away from the keyboard. Nothing I posted named you specifically nor did I quote you.

Nope, I'm not taking it personally at all. Don't assign emotion to my posts where there is none, I'm simply stating my opinion.

On female circumcision: You seem to think that one crime is deserving of international policing while another isn't. That is a finely honed set of morals you possess.

What? Where did I say that? No where did I say anything of the sort, don't put words in my mouth.

I simply stated this is not a thread about female circumcision, this is a thread about ebay, recasts and 3rd party models. If you want a thread about female circumcision, make your own. I'm not going to get drawn in to discussion about all the ills of the world in a thread about EBAY, RECASTS and 3RD PARTY MODELS.

Note: Caps added for emphasis, not emotion... coz for some reason you think I am taking things personally.

On lost sales: You missed the point. A lost sale is a lost sale. People who buy recasts have no intention of buying the legitimate product so it in fact is effectively the same as if a potential client went to a competitor. The end is a net loss for GW. If the recaster didn't exist, the sale wouldn't have been made anyway.

I really don't care about a net loss for GW or not, I'm talking about recasts in general. In general, I think they're wrong. I would like to think I have enough mental capacity to separate why I think something is wrong vs what is culturally ingrained.

I think the creator of art should have rights to profit from it and set terms for it's use. That's just the way I think it should be in order to best promote the arts. Culture may not agree with me, you may not agree with me, I just think that's the way it should be, hence I think recasters are doing something wrong.

Western culture is massively self entitled. Go and read a thread on music/game/movie piracy and 90% of the reasons for pirating are purely "self" driven.

I know it's the culture in other places not to care about profiting from someone elses work. I accept that. Doesn't mean I have to agree that it's the best way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:
For the record, until very recently I owned GW stock so I am far from a GW hater. I just have a broader perspective than most people on this topic due to a degree in history, a great deal of experience with law (not a lawyer) and having lived in several countries where such matters were perceived differently. That said, I know what current law is but I also know how impossible it is to enforce internationally when the cultures of other countries don't share the Wests love of corporate protectionism.

It doesn't help your argument when you feel the need to list off your credentials. Don't assume other people disagree with you because they're more ignorant than you.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I simply stated this is not a thread about female circumcision, this is a thread about ebay, recasts and 3rd party models. If you want a thread about female circumcision, make your own. I'm not going to get drawn in to discussion about all the ills of the world in a thread about EBAY, RECASTS and 3RD PARTY MODELS.

Note: Caps added for emphasis, not emotion... coz for some reason you think I am taking things personally.

The you possibly need some help with internet forum etiquette as using all capitals is generally accepted to mean that someone is screaming. Not usually the tone for someone carrying on a rational discussion. You are correct; however, my original statement was not geared towards you to begin with but towards those that scream "crime!" If we as a society are going to put so much money and effort into policing the intellectual property ownership of corporations, why do we seem to be unable to protect workers in Wal Mart plants in India or people in Darfour? It's misplaced morality. That's my point. Yes, breaking the law is wrong, but not all laws are worthy of being protected...like, I don't know a certain law that has come under fire in Russia recently. It's a farcical comparison, I'll grant you, but it just illustrates where we put importance in our world; money over people.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I really don't care about a net loss for GW or not, I'm talking about recasts in general. In general, I think they're wrong. I would like to think I have enough mental capacity to separate why I think something is wrong vs what is culturally ingrained.

I think the creator of art should have rights to profit from it and set terms for it's use. That's just the way I think it should be in order to best promote the arts. Culture may not agree with me, you may not agree with me, I just think that's the way it should be, hence I think recasters are doing something wrong.

Western culture is massively self entitled. Go and read a thread on music/game/movie piracy and 90% of the reasons for pirating are purely "self" driven.

I know it's the culture in other places not to care about profiting from someone elses work. I accept that. Doesn't mean I have to agree that it's the best way.

Umm, ok, so you can disagree with the majority of the population on the planet. It doesn't make what I've written any less true. Look, I'm not trying to say that one thing is "ok" or another is not; I'm just trying to say that the current perception of "ownership" in Western culture does not jive with the rest of the planet....there're a lot of people out there and they don't all agree with the way we're brought up to think. I'm not challenging your mental capacity, I'm challenging an ingrained jingoist tendency that causes you and others to perceive the world a certain way. You don't have to agree with me, life goes on; we can electronically shake hands and walk away.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It doesn't help your argument when you feel the need to list off your credentials. Don't assume other people disagree with you because they're more ignorant than you.

Don't take this the wrong way but you're not good at dealing with people are you? When you are involved in a debate or discussion with someone on a matter where you do not agree, it is always beneficial to lay as much groundwork as possible so that you know where the other person is coming from. When I stated those personal things about myself, I am not doing so to try and create some sense that I have clout but to illustrate where my way of thinking originates from. I may be wrong but I believe (and I could very well be wrong here, my memory is faulty) that another poster, Peregrine, is a Lawyer, so his posts in this thread naturally discuss how recasts break the law; with the bit of information about him being a lawyer, it's easier to understand where his point of view originates from and for a common understanding to be obtained.

We do not have to agree with each other but we can at least understand each other's points of view; that my friend is one of the great things of human interaction.

Cheers.

My apologies if my use of caps was misleading. I know it's used as "yelling", hence why I used it for emphasis (increased volume). But really, you shouldn't try to infer emotion in an internet post.

 agnosto wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I simply stated this is not a thread about female circumcision, this is a thread about ebay, recasts and 3rd party models. If you want a thread about female circumcision, make your own. I'm not going to get drawn in to discussion about all the ills of the world in a thread about EBAY, RECASTS and 3RD PARTY MODELS.

Note: Caps added for emphasis, not emotion... coz for some reason you think I am taking things personally.

The you possibly need some help with internet forum etiquette as using all capitals is generally accepted to mean that someone is screaming. Not usually the tone for someone carrying on a rational discussion. You are correct; however, my original statement was not geared towards you to begin with but towards those that scream "crime!" If we as a society are going to put so much money and effort into policing the intellectual property ownership of corporations, why do we seem to be unable to protect workers in Wal Mart plants in India or people in Darfour? It's misplaced morality. That's my point. Yes, breaking the law is wrong, but not all laws are worthy of being protected...like, I don't know a certain law that has come under fire in Russia recently. It's a farcical comparison, I'll grant you, but it just illustrates where we put importance in our world; money over people.

My point is simply this is a thread about recasts, ebay and 3rd party models. There's things I'd take to the street to defend, recasts aren't one of them... but we aren't discussing those other things.

If you think recasts are fine, just say you think recasts are fine, if you think they're wrong but it's no big deal so whatever, then say that. No need to bring female circumcision and Walmart workers in India in to the debate.

Umm, ok, so you can disagree with the majority of the population on the planet. It doesn't make what I've written any less true. Look, I'm not trying to say that one thing is "ok" or another is not; I'm just trying to say that the current perception of "ownership" in Western culture does not jive with the rest of the planet....there're a lot of people out there and they don't all agree with the way we're brought up to think. I'm not challenging your mental capacity, I'm challenging an ingrained jingoist tendency that causes you and others to perceive the world a certain way.

I'm not really in to the whole philosophical debate of perceptions of ownership. I think recasters are wrong because I feel that society benefits when artists can profit from their work and copiers are limited in their ability to profit from other peoples work. I'm not sure how this is some "ingrained jingoist tendancy". I never even talked about foreign policy or international law, I never suggested that we should have international law that goes against recasters. I never suggested the western way is right or that western law is right. These are things you are inferring.

You don't have to agree with me, life goes on; we can electronically shake hands and walk away.

Totally, and I never said you have to agree with me. Just stating my opinion.

Don't take this the wrong way but you're not good at dealing with people are you? When you are involved in a debate or discussion with someone on a matter where you do not agree, it is always beneficial to lay as much groundwork as possible so that you know where the other person is coming from. When I stated those personal things about myself, I am not doing so to try and create some sense that I have clout but to illustrate where my way of thinking originates from. I may be wrong but I believe (and I could very well be wrong here, my memory is faulty) that another poster, Peregrine, is a Lawyer, so his posts in this thread naturally discuss how recasts break the law; with the bit of information about him being a lawyer, it's easier to understand where his point of view originates from and for a common understanding to be obtained.

IMO stating ones credentials in a debate is only necessary when you're actually stating it as a professional opinion, even then it's rarely better to state credentials vs stating facts (which you should have because of your credentials).

You can state that it's culturally different and I'll agree with you, no problems there. To state you have a broader perspective than most makes you lose respect. Let other people determine if you have a broader perspective than most. In our western internet culture, it does not benefit your argument to put yourself on a pedestal.

FWIW, I'd be surprised if Peregrine is a lawyer based on the content of his posts in this thread... but then maybe he is and his posts are his personal opinion rather than his professional opinion and hence did not state his credentials.

Also, FWIW, it does not help saying you have a degree in history, implying you are well read and are capable of seeing meaning and context in writing, while simultaneously incorrectly inferring (and by inferring I mean pulling out of your backside): "On female circumcision: You seem to think that one crime is deserving of international policing while another isn't."

This is why I don't state my education and credentials, because when I do something silly like that, it doesn't cast aspersions on my education and credentials

We do not have to agree with each other but we can at least understand each other's points of view; that my friend is one of the great things of human interaction.

I'm pretty sure I do understand your point of view, though perhaps I don't because my attempt to expand on them failed. Who knows. In any case, this thread has wasted too much of my time today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, the formatting of that post got a bit messed up, took a few edits to correct.

EDIT: I'll add to that and say I hope I haven't come across as trying to personally offend you, lol.

Umm, ok, so you can disagree with the majority of the population on the planet. It doesn't make what I've written any less true. Look, I'm not trying to say that one thing is "ok" or another is not; I'm just trying to say that the current perception of "ownership" in Western culture does not jive with the rest of the planet....there're a lot of people out there and they don't all agree with the way we're brought up to think. I'm not challenging your mental capacity, I'm challenging an ingrained jingoist tendency that causes you and others to perceive the world a certain way.

I'm not really in to the whole philosophical debate of perceptions of ownership. I think recasters are wrong because I feel that society benefits when artists can profit from their work and copiers are limited in their ability to profit from other peoples work. I'm not sure how this is some "ingrained jingoist tendancy". I never even talked about foreign policy or international law, I never suggested that we should have international law that goes against recasters. I never suggested the western way is right or that western law is right. These are things you are inferring.

Just to address this specifically within the limits of this thread. GW's have their artists on salary, so they earn no more or less whether whatever they are told to make sells in the bucketload or not at all - they profit from their work in exactly the same way. So in this very specific instance, recasts do not have any impact on the artists own profitability. How do you reconcile that?

Also, if Peregrine is a lawyer, I'll eat my Internet hat!

No, Peregrine is not a lawyer, and is not arguing based on any kind of professional knowledge of IP law. In fact, Peregrine's position is that recasting and purchasing recasts is morally wrong even if you can find some kind of legal loophole that allows it.

 azreal13 wrote:
Just to address this specifically within the limits of this thread. GW's have their artists on salary, so they earn no more or less whether whatever they are told to make sells in the bucketload or not at all - they profit from their work in exactly the same way. So in this very specific instance, recasts do not have any impact on the artists own profitability. How do you reconcile that?

Well I'll preface it by saying I don't really care if GW completely goes out of business and/or all their artists quit, lol.

IMO, if an artist wants to give away the rights to their work for a salary, that still doesn't mean those rights go to the wind. Even if they are getting paid a salary, if recasters are allowed to roam free, the value of their work is diminished.

FWIW, I don't think it's a big deal that there's russian and chinese recasters or that there's online piracy or whatever while it is limited as such. It really doesn't make a lot of difference IMO if there's a few people here and there buying recasts, I don't LIKE that it happens because I think if you enjoy the miniatures and enjoy the universe GW has created you should either accept their price and give the money to the people who actually earned it. Not for GW's benefit but for the benefit of the hobby. If you don't think what GW is selling is worth the price, that's awesome! Don't buy it, give your money to Privateer or Mantic or Perry and lets have some real competition in the market.

EDIT: I'll also add that if you recast, I don't feel like you're a terrible person and I don't feel like the artist is hard done by... whether or not you yourself feel happy with what you do is up to you, whether or not it's wrong and/or illegal should be based on whether society feels it's wrong or not in the best interests of the society as a whole.

P.S. I'll try to swap to underlining to avoid people thinking I'm getting overly emotional.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
My apologies if my use of caps was misleading. I know it's used as "yelling", hence why I used it for emphasis (increased volume). But really, you shouldn't try to infer emotion in an internet post.

So yelling for you doesn't denote emotion? Interesting.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
My point is simply this is a thread about recasts, ebay and 3rd party models. There's things I'd take to the street to defend, recasts aren't one of them... but we aren't discussing those other things. If you think recasts are fine, just say you think recasts are fine, if you think they're wrong but it's no big deal so whatever, then say that. No need to bring female circumcision and Walmart workers in India in to the debate.

I'm actually ambivalent about the whole thing. For me the interest in discussing the topic is in the finer points of morality. In the earlier pages of this thread some posters were vehemently decrying recasting as thievery. Going back, I see that you correctly pointed out that it's technically not. My interest is in how Western morality has shaped international agreements/laws and forced less powerful countries into accepting cultural norms that are not their own....kind of like the UN attempting to stop female circumcision. That was what was alluded to in my first post.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I never even talked about foreign policy or international law, I never suggested that we should have international law that goes against recasters. I never suggested the western way is right or that western law is right. These are things you are inferring.

You're quite right, you didn't, I did. We're having two separate conversations. I stated an opinion based upon my areas of interest, you responded, I then assumed that I was not clear enough as you appeared to not understand my point so I responded. If my assumption was incorrect, I apologize; I am simply attempting to establish mutual understanding. You never suggested the Western way is the right way, you said it, I don't need to infer it; you believe recasts are wrong because you believe that artists will not receive fair recompense if recasters exist. I don't believe that statement to be true because, as I said earlier, people were producing art and products long before there were government protections and international treaties to "protect the artists". My opinion is that it is not the artists who benefit from such protections, it's the corporations.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
IMO stating ones credentials in a debate is only necessary when you're actually stating it as a professional opinion, even then it's rarely better to state credentials vs stating facts (which you should have because of your credentials).

You can state that it's culturally different and I'll agree with you, no problems there. To state you have a broader perspective than most makes you lose respect. Let other people determine if you have a broader perspective than most. In our western internet culture, it does not benefit your argument to put yourself on a pedestal.

FWIW, I'd be surprised if Peregrine is a lawyer based on the content of his posts in this thread... but then maybe he is and his posts are his personal opinion rather than his professional opinion and hence did not state his credentials.

Also, FWIW, it does not help saying you have a degree in history, implying you are well read and are capable of seeing meaning and context in writing, while simultaneously incorrectly inferring (and by inferring I mean pulling out of your backside): "On female circumcision: You seem to think that one crime is deserving of international policing while another isn't."

This is why I don't state my education and credentials, because when I do something silly like that, it doesn't cast aspersions on my education and credentials

If you consider my degree in history as having "credentials", you're my new best friend. Having a degree in history usually means I can answer a few obscure questions in trivial pursuit games and that's about it. No, I've been trained to provide this type of information when having a debate in order to lay a basis for understanding. You could easily have responded by asking which countries I am referring to in which people do not hold to the Western ideals of corporate protectionism or any number of lines of inquiry that would allow you further insight into areas that I may not have adequately covered while attempting to explain myself. If your experience is different in such situations, so be it. As for owning GW stock, that was meant as a way of assuring that I have no ulterior motive in lusting after the downfall of the company (as many on Dakka actually do).

As for Peregrine, as I said; I may be wrong and most likely am after reading azreal's post but hey, I'll admit to and apologize to Peregrine about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, Peregrine is not a lawyer, and is not arguing based on any kind of professional knowledge of IP law. In fact, Peregrine's position is that recasting and purchasing recasts is morally wrong even if you can find some kind of legal loophole that allows it.

Sorry for confusing you with someone else then. I meant not to cast aspersions upon your character!

Ebay is the only way that I can have an Eldar army that does not violate my "Absolutely not Finecast" rule. You can get OOP metal models of all the Aspects for less than the Finecast ones. That is hilarious to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Being luxury item doesnt mean it can't be overpriced. If no one buys enough of it to make a profit, its by definition "overpriced" regardless of what it is. Its called pricing yourself out of a market.

Yes, there's such a thing as pricing yourself out of a sale, and it's often a bad business strategy. But that doesn't magically turn into some kind of moral issue where you're justified in stealing a product because the seller is wrong to sell it for so much. If you're priced out of GW's market then leave the market, don't steal the models just because you want them to be cheaper.

 Formosa wrote:
yep to the above, i have supported GW for 25 years, i have spent THOUSANDS at least and they have actually priced me out too, now here is the kicker, if GW prices were reasonable in the first place people like me would not even consider going to recasters or 3rd party, look at what steam did in russia and they proved that sell it cheap to kill piracy can turn a profit

And what you miss here is that GW can't compete with recasters. All the recaster has to do is the actual casting work, they don't have to spend money to pay the artists to design the model, or the rule authors who make the game that you're buying the model for, or the customer service department to handle your problems and replace any defective parts, or the factory workers in a country with minimum wage laws and safe working conditions. Your attempt to provide yourself with some bizarre moral high ground here is just laughably wrong.

Ah peregrine as per usual miss the point entirely, You see I dont care about GW anymore, I barely actually play the game infact and really only like the background and some of the models, I seek no moral high ground and dont really care about justifying myself to you or anyone else, i was simply explaining that yes i have used recasts and may continue to and then trying to explain why people do it, you may not like it but i and others dont care morality is subjective anyway and it isnt against my moral code nor it seems others and about all the factory workers and things? honestly i dont really care about that either, im not a very nice person i admit but i have earned the damn right to bend the rules here and there.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even if they are getting paid a salary, if recasters are allowed to roam free, the value of their work is diminished.

I think Leonardo Da Vinci would disagree with that statement. Somehow, I don't think the endless copies and depictions of the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper throughout history have diminished the value of the originals.

Anyway, I'm a firm believer in 3rd party products and resale of original product via Ebay.

Yes, it's cultural, but it's a culture we've adopted for a good reason. It encourages the creators of works to create more because they have rights to profit from them. It means creators can actually have it as their full time job. We live in a culture that supports artists because we see the value of it to society.

I always though that copyright laws were put up as part of western countries trade wars in the XIX century and now they are just a method to keep firms in other markets out of turf which western companies see as their own . Anyway it is funny how first western sociaties build up their strenght on stealing land, resources , draining man power from other countries , doing it for centuries and now when others want to do the same , it is suddenly immoral .

It really doesn't make a lot of difference IMO if there's a few people here and there buying recasts, I don't LIKE that it happens because I think if you enjoy the miniatures and enjoy the universe GW has created you should either accept their price and give the money to the people who actually

Why , what rule says that if you play with a recast army and a printed codex , you will always feel worse then with the originals ? Maybe if toy soldiers were used as a show of status , then yeah , it would be like having a real LV bag is being better then having a fake one , although having a fake one is a lot better then having non . But toy soldiers are not part of the status giving things , in fact having more models bought for full has a higher chance at coloring you a fool , when the option to buy them cheaper is there . Why buy models at a local FLGS with a 10-20% discount , when you can pay 100% price at a GW , right ? More money to GW means they will make more content , in fact if we went that way not buying directly from GW is like recasting too. Your technicly stealing from them when you don't buy the models at full price . Even if you buy them at full price in a FLGS your stealing too , because GW did not sell the models to the store at 100% price .

I get most of my models from GW store or from ebay. I have bought a couple of third -party models in the past and have seen some excellent models from other manufacturers that would look great in my SM army.

I won't pay money for recasts however - recasts to me are just some lazy git making money on the back of someone else's work (same as pirated movies, cd's and games). I have no problem with people taking a GW model and re-sculpting/converting it to something unique and selling casts of that as they've put some time and effort into it, but straight re-cast copies are just someone tryng to make mney for very little effort and the pics I've seen previously show recasts to be of a poor standard.

That been said I do find it funny that nearly all third-party stockists of GW products I've come across sell them for at least 10% less than GW themselves do so I have no problem buying second hand from Ebay as I feel GW is a bit money-grabbing/over-priced at times.

As per original topic this is just my opinion - some will agree, some will disagree, but that's life.

I am surprised downloaded codex's and books were not on the list.

Seriously, Ebay is god's gift to 40K players. I recently bought a 10-man squad of the 2nd edition metal Eldar Rangers for $25us with shipping. Not only do I love the 2nd edition vibe, but that's the equivalent of $66 retail for the new ones, and you would be stuck with salvaging bad Finecast molds.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Seriously, Ebay is god's gift to 40K players. I recently bought a 10-man squad of the 2nd edition metal Eldar Rangers for $25us with shipping. Not only do I love the 2nd edition vibe, but that's the equivalent of $66 retail for the new ones, and you would be stuck with salvaging bad Finecast molds.

To add to that, the Swap Shop here and Bartertown are also great places for second hand products. Bought most of Guard from both sources for less than half of retail.

 Formosa wrote:

 cvtuttle wrote:
Amazing to me how people attempt to justify theft with the recasts. It's very black and white to me. *shrug*

It amazes me how many people try to justify stealing from a customer base because they are loyal, well my loyalty has been burned, also i am not stealing anything, its the recasters that are the ones stealing, i am buying from them and while it may be morally wrong, so is treating your customers and fanbase like total crap.

Now if it were just me i can understand, but its not, its a whole lot of people who feel the same way, that tells me that there is something deeply wrong with the policies of GW.

On the other side of the fence however I buy Forge world full price from them, they are not gauging me for £30 for 10 hammerers that look worse than the avatars of war minis and they cost alot less!

This is such an utterly ridiculous argument. I used to interview employees who stole from the company I worked at. There is literally a phase of the interview called "The Justification Phase". You basically just hit every point of that in this discussion. Theft has nothing to do with the points you made... This isn't food or shelter. You are talking about a luxury item. You are blaming the companies behavior and prices for your illicit actions.

Here are similar statements I used to hear...

"I deserved those items I stole because they don't pay me enough."
"Other people are doing it, so it's ok if I do it too."
"I bought all this other stuff, so it's ok that I took this one item."

Pretty much taken right from the training manual:
In employee theft cases, the guilty suspect may place blame for his behavior on such factors as inadequate income, poor security measures by the employer, or someone else who did not do his job (left the money out or left the money drawer unlocked). The suspect may even justify his behavior by pointing out that other employees are engaged in similar activities. In burglary cases, the suspect may justify his theft by blaming unusual family expenses, desperate circumstances (e.g., no job but a family to support), or a friend for suggesting the idea.

 cvtuttle wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 cvtuttle wrote:
Amazing to me how people attempt to justify theft with the recasts. It's very black and white to me. *shrug*

It amazes me how many people try to justify stealing from a customer base because they are loyal, well my loyalty has been burned, also i am not stealing anything, its the recasters that are the ones stealing, i am buying from them and while it may be morally wrong, so is treating your customers and fanbase like total crap.

Now if it were just me i can understand, but its not, its a whole lot of people who feel the same way, that tells me that there is something deeply wrong with the policies of GW.

On the other side of the fence however I buy Forge world full price from them, they are not gauging me for £30 for 10 hammerers that look worse than the avatars of war minis and they cost alot less!

This is such an utterly ridiculous argument. I used to interview employees who stole from the company I worked at. There is literally a phase of the interview called "The Justification Phase". You basically just hit every point of that in this discussion. Theft has nothing to do with the points you made... This isn't food or shelter. You are talking about a luxury item. You are blaming the companies behavior and prices for your illicit actions.

Here are similar statements I used to hear...

"I deserved those items I stole because they don't pay me enough."
"Other people are doing it, so it's ok if I do it too."
"I bought all this other stuff, so it's ok that I took this one item."

Pretty much taken right from the training manual:
In employee theft cases, the guilty suspect may place blame for his behavior on such factors as inadequate income, poor security measures by the employer, or someone else who did not do his job (left the money out or left the money drawer unlocked). The suspect may even justify his behavior by pointing out that other employees are engaged in similar activities. In burglary cases, the suspect may justify his theft by blaming unusual family expenses, desperate circumstances (e.g., no job but a family to support), or a friend for suggesting the idea.

You know, it's pretty self-defeating to counter one ridiculous argument with another ridiculous argument.

Why are you comparing copyright violations to physical theft as if they're the same thing? When copyright is violated by illegal copies, the original copyright holder does not lose any physical items. At worst, they lose the potential for an additional sale. That is absolutely not the same as having their inventory stolen. When some dude in China is copying GW models, the equivalent stock does not just vanish from a warehouse in Lenton.
This is the same line of thinking that allows music and film distributors to sue infringers for obscene amounts of cash, based on the fallacy that every potential sale is a lost sale. Not everyone who acquires a bootleg copy of an item ever had the intention to purchase an original copy at full price. Formosa could have argued that he would have never have bought brand new products from GW, and only made purchases because the less-savoury alternative was available. In that case GW actually lost nothing, as there was never a potential sale. Obviously there's no way to prove this, but it does show the key difference between theft and copyright infringement.
I already posted earlier in the thread to say that I have purchased recasts specifically to acquire models that are no longer in production. How does this qualify as theft, if it's impossible to acquire these items as new?

The heart of the matter is that it's impossible to prove how much damage copyright infringement does. The owner may be losing out on 100% of those sales, it may as low as 1%. The truth is that no one can possibly know.

True theft is a purely selfish crime I don't think anyone can justify without serious mental gymnastics. Copyright infringement is a whole other area filled with unknowns, grey areas and lots of guesswork. Please don't fall into the trap of compromising your stance by making faulty comparisons or over-simplifying matters.

You are blaming the companies behavior and prices for your illicit actions.

But making copies for yourself is not illegal , also if you name it different it is no longer the same thing , so you can do copies of it too. The whole china industry works like that now and a large part of British economy .

Makumba wrote:

But making copies for yourself is not illegal , .

That depends heavily on the country.
You should include that in your sentence, and not assume that your laws applies all over the world.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Makumba wrote:

But making copies for yourself is not illegal , .

That depends heavily on the country.
You should include that in your sentence, and not assume that your laws applies all over the world.

Where doesnt it apply? It applies here, its only illegal if I start selling it.

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure in the UK, reproducing copyrighted works requires some sort of plausible fair use.

I'm also pretty sure "so I don't need to buy more of them" doesn't really qualify.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Makumba wrote:

But making copies for yourself is not illegal , .

That depends heavily on the country.
You should include that in your sentence, and not assume that your laws applies all over the world.

Where doesnt it apply? It applies here, its only illegal if I start selling it.

Really?

http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewInfosheet.php?sheet=29

"Owners of copyright in literary, dramatic and musical works have the exclusive right to:
• copy their work (for example, by photocopying it, copying it by hand, reciting it onto an
audio device or digital scanning);
• publish their work;
• in the case of computer programs, rent copies to the public in certain circumstances;"

"Owners of copyright in artistic works have the exclusive right in relation to the first three
activities listed above."

"There are no general exemptions from copyright laws for non-profit organisations or for
private or domestic use."