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.

 -DE- wrote:
I
With the abuse GW has laid on their fanbase over the years, I do not find it unethical to pirate their publications or purchase illegal recasts of their models. If it was Corvus Belli, I would find it unethical, because it's a company that doesn't abuse its position and power and treats its customers with respect. All GW has towards their customers is spite. Cheating Tom Kirby and his cohort out of a couple hundred dollars would hardly sully my conscience.

What a vacuous and unconvincing argument. Making up a justification that GW treats its customers with 'spite'? really?

This is like burglars who claim they did it because the world is unfair and their victim was rich, or muggers who boast how someone 'looked at them funny.' it's a morally bankrupt argument, and is a great example of today's unjustified sense of materialist 'entitlement'; I deserve to have these toys, and if I can't have them, it's OK to steal.

AS far as the OP's question, if my oppo was a nice fella I'd play him, no prob. But if he came out with claptrap like the above, no way.

Here's a decent description of "fair use": http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-law-making-personal-copies-22200.html

Are you legally safe making recasts in your basement? Probably, GW (who would have standing) probably won't come knocking on your door. If you're a big seller, they might come after you. That's not the point though, only a few people here are advocating making their own recasts. The more common approach is to buy said recasts, which is not illegal. It is, however, unethical for the same reason it's unethical for me to buy a photocopied novel or a pirated CD. The originator of the creative work is not being allowed to profit from their work.
You don't have a right to play Warhammer 40K or any other game. On the other hand, GW does have a right to distribute their intellectual property as they see fit (within the bounds of the law). To say that right is irrelevant is to say the same for every other similar enterprise.

Nobody is arguing the legality, they're arguing if you'd play somebody who was doing it.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Making up a justification that GW treats its customers with 'spite'? really?

If you don't think GW treats their players poorly, perhaps you haven't dealt with them raising prices by 40+% in your country and then putting ridiculous restrictions on merchants in other nations to prevent you from ordering there. I'd call that spiteful, and damn straight I'll shaft 'em back for it.

Oh my a few White Knights in here. Anyone who is claiming it is wrong to use/buy recasts (not talking about making recasts and selling them) is wrong, you telling me you NEVER EVER ONCE downloaded a GW book? Never downloaded a song or movie? A video game?

All I will say is HYPOCRIT.

Which I will correct to HYPOCRITE!

I don't give a flying gak where some on got thier models or if they are recast or not. So yes I'd play him. But I'd be extremely jealous of him and probably really try to get him to get me the same hookup xD

 Yonan wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Making up a justification that GW treats its customers with 'spite'? really?

If you don't think GW treats their players poorly, perhaps you haven't dealt with them raising prices by 40+% in your country and then putting ridiculous restrictions on merchants in other nations to prevent you from ordering there. I'd call that spiteful, and damn straight I'll shaft 'em back for it.

Exalted. We pay far more than we should. And it's higher than 40% even after factoring in exchange rates

If I'm playing an adult who I know has an income then no. If it's some kid who just wants to get into the hobby I understand.

 azreal13 wrote:
Which I will correct to HYPOCRITE!

Damn auto correct. It always keeps changing what I write sometimes.

Davor wrote:
Oh my a few White Knights in here. Anyone who is claiming it is wrong to use/buy recasts (not talking about making recasts and selling them) is wrong, you telling me you NEVER EVER ONCE downloaded a GW book? Never downloaded a song or movie? A video game?

All I will say is HYPOCRIT.

Yeah! Why not go steal someone's car? I mean.. I already have downloaded a book and pirated a game, so now I am excused in further law violations and it's perfectly okay and justified! And if I infringed someone's copyright already, why not go for more? All I'm saying that if one crime is not wrong, then maybe another one isn't either, right?

See the flaw yet? It's like saying "how can you claim that killing is wrong if you already killed someone before?" so what, killing people is okay now that you have done it before..? Yes, one can call it wrong even if he has done it, that's not being a hypocrite. I'd be a hypocrite if I said that it's wrong and that I don't do it while actually doing it.

Even though I say that it's morally wrong and I would try to convince someone to stop buying recasts, it doesn't actually mean that I can't understand his reasons. Maybe he's too poor and yet he wants to play it without saving up for one army over the year's course and buy crappily painted/mistreated models off eBay. I won't bash him, but I will never say that it's okay. A starving person stealing bread from a rich guy will still be wrong to do so and it will be at best "necessary evil" and he should be ashamed of doing so, even if it was a matter of survival. I would never accept hearing that it's perfectly okay for him to do so in his situation.

If someone's too poor to start an army but really wants to, I will not bash him for buying recasts, but if he ever brags about it or feels that it's alright to buy recasts and there's nothing wrong about it I will disagree with him. Again - no theft(and copyright/IP infringement are a theft) is -ever- okay nor justified, no matter how little love you have for the one you steal from and buying from those guys is promoting theft as they make profit off someone else's work without his consent.

I don't agree with recasting, but I'm not on GW's payroll and I think it's a personal morale choice. So yeah, I'd have no problem playing against someone with recasts.

 Klerych wrote:

See the flaw yet?

Yes, you're comparing a civil violation with criminal acts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just a thought, is buying a counterfeit product actually against the law anywhere? Or is it the act of making or selling counterfeit goods that's illegal?

Because if there is no law against buying, then the theoretical person in the OP has done nothing wrong.

Random Dude wrote:
If I'm playing an adult who I know has an income then no. If it's some kid who just wants to get into the hobby I understand.

I'm actually curious about this. Why does it matter to you? The models are the tools to playing the game, you would rather not play at all than play with someone who found a way to buy his chess pieces slightly cheaper?

Is it a jealousy thing, or is it a love for GW and you don't want to support people playing the game who don't support GW in return?

I'm just speculating here and I'm actually very curious to why. It's clearly not a morality thing as you are ok with the kid doing it.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Random Dude wrote:
If I'm playing an adult who I know has an income then no. If it's some kid who just wants to get into the hobby I understand.

I'm actually curious about this. Why does it matter to you? The models are the tools to playing the game, you would rather not play at all than play with someone who found a way to buy his chess pieces slightly cheaper?

Is it a jealousy thing, or is it a love for GW and you don't want to support people playing the game who don't support GW in return?

I'm just speculating here and I'm actually very curious to why. It's clearly not a morality thing as you are ok with the kid doing it.

I think you're way too negative in this regard. Your earlier post clearly reeked of some kind of spite towards people who buy GW stuff and expect others to do so too. Remember that recasting is still illegal and it's a crime. Some people consider crimes morally wrong and might have moral barriers against playing with someone who is using illegal pieces. You may not agree with such thing, but you have to respect it and accusing that person of being a spoiled brat that only wants to show off with his expensive collection because he's richer than the other player is very childish and immature. In fact you mentioning it with such spite made me think that you were bullied or insulted by the rich kids when you were young or something.

As for his adult-kid difference.. I guess it's because the adult is very, very likely to be able to afford a 40k army due to having a job unlike the kid. It's also kinda expected of a mature, adult person to not buy illegal stuff nor to encourage copyright infringement as he is supposed to be a responsible person at that age. And recasts are something even worse than piracy because you're deliberately paying thieves for stuff they stole and made profit off it when you could actually afford the genuine version of it and pay the one who actually put money and effort into making it, rather than just copying the design on cheap materials to sell them.

Buying them is not illegal, but it's still paying people that stole something from others and getting that thing from them. I don't know how that could ever be morally okay, no matter how much you dislike the company.

And it's even worse with people who say "Can't afford it! Better drink my own piss* Better buy a recast at 50% off the price!" and then spend the saved money on stuff like alcohol or cigarettes.



* -

 Klerych wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Random Dude wrote:
If I'm playing an adult who I know has an income then no. If it's some kid who just wants to get into the hobby I understand.

I'm actually curious about this. Why does it matter to you? The models are the tools to playing the game, you would rather not play at all than play with someone who found a way to buy his chess pieces slightly cheaper?

Is it a jealousy thing, or is it a love for GW and you don't want to support people playing the game who don't support GW in return?

I'm just speculating here and I'm actually very curious to why. It's clearly not a morality thing as you are ok with the kid doing it.

I think you're way too negative in this regard. Your earlier post clearly reeked of some kind of spite towards people who buy GW stuff and expect others to do so too. Remember that recasting is still illegal and it's a crime. Some people consider crimes morally wrong and might have moral barriers against playing with someone who is using illegal pieces. You may not agree with such thing, but you have to respect it and accusing that person of being a spoiled brat that only wants to show off with his expensive collection because he's richer than the other player is very childish and immature. In fact you mentioning it with such spite made me think that you were bullied or insulted by the rich kids when you were young or something.

As for his adult-kid difference.. I guess it's because the adult is very, very likely to be able to afford a 40k army due to having a job unlike the kid. It's also kinda expected of a mature, adult person to not buy illegal stuff nor to encourage copyright infringement as he is supposed to be a responsible person at that age. And recasts are something even worse than piracy because you're deliberately paying thieves for stuff they stole and made profit off it when you could actually afford the genuine version of it and pay the one who actually put money and effort into making it, rather than just copying the design on cheap materials to sell them.

I think you're projecting far more emotion on to others posts than is intended, my own included, which obviously indicates you feel strongly to on the subject. Nothing wrong with that, but please try and mitigate your answers with this in mind. It's probably not the best idea to "guess" what another poster meant, for instance, but perhaps best to let them respond for themselves?

Buying them is not illegal, but it's still paying people that stole something from others and getting that thing from them. I don't know how that could ever be morally okay, no matter how much you dislike the company.

Well, I guess that boils down to one's own morals, which are an entirely personal matter, as is evidenced by the different opinions on show in this thread.

And it's even worse with people who say "Can't afford it! Better drink my own piss* Better buy a recast at 50% off the price!" and then spend the saved money on stuff like alcohol or cigarettes.

Honestly, I don't even know where to start with this, it isn't relevant, a valid argument, or... Nope, just going to leave this one hanging.

Wait so it's not ok for us to justify it morally in any way shape or form but it's ok for you to justify this poster as being morally sound in his opinion that it is ok for kids to go it and not adults, that you decided for him is morally fueled, justified by nothing but the ASSUMPTION that the adult has a larger disposable income than the kid, and the strange belief that it's less immoral for the kid to do something than an adult? Regardless of whether they are less knowledgable / expected to do the right thing than an adult, holding the adult accountable for it and refusing to play is kind of a ridiculous stand point if you are morally fine with playing the kid doing the exact same thing. All that aside, where do you think moral less adults come from if not kids that were never held accountable?

I also like how you decided all this for him, even though you like the rest of us have no idea hence why I asked him the question and not you ...

Are you sure it's ME who is the one that is too emotionally attached to this debate dude? Lol

 azreal13 wrote:

I think you're projecting far more emotion on to others posts than is intended, my own included, which obviously indicates you feel strongly to on the subject. Nothing wrong with that, but please try and mitigate your answers with this in mind. It's probably not the best idea to "guess" what another poster meant, for instance, but perhaps best to let them respond for themselves?

Well, I just thought that it was obvious enough with what he wrote and given the fact that he wanted an answer then I guess he could just as well take mine. And if my interpretation of what he meant is wrong, well, it's still a point as good as any, so why not comment on that? I know that it's cutting into someone else's 'conversation', but then again it's an open thread and we're more or less discussing the same topic.

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, I guess that boils down to one's own morals, which are an entirely personal matter, as is evidenced by the different opinions on show in this thread.

True, although saying that clearly cuts any kind of further discussion. You know, you could just as well reply to the OP saying "Well, people have opinions, no need to discuss. Mods, lock it please." and if that's a thread then, obviously, OP wanted to know and people can discuss things on topic here stating their opinions.

 azreal13 wrote:

And it's even worse with people who say "Can't afford it! Better drink my own piss* Better buy a recast at 50% off the price!" and then spend the saved money on stuff like alcohol or cigarettes.

Honestly, I don't even know where to start with this, it isn't relevant, a valid argument, or... Nope, just going to leave this one hanging.

It was only partially relevant, I admit. It's just that some people often like to justify themselves saying that they won't buy books/movies/games because they can't afford them/are too poor/have too low salary to pay for them while wasting even more money on stuff like alcohol and cigarettes. That's precisely what I call hypocricy.

I guess I just was raised to be better than that. If I can't afford something, I'll save up to get it. I won't pay a thief for a copy made off stolen design. And if I feel that I am not getting the bang for my buck, I just don't buy it and look for a discount/something else.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Wait so it's not ok for us to justify it morally in any way shape or form but it's ok for you to justify this poster as being morally sound in his opinion that it is ok for kids to go it and not adults, that you decided for him is morally fueled, justified by nothing but the ASSUMPTION that the adult has a larger disposable income than the kid, and the strange belief that it's less immoral for the kid to do something than an adult? Regardless of whether they are less knowledgable / expected to do the right thing than an adult, holding the adult accountable for it and refusing to play is kind of a ridiculous stand point if you are morally fine with playing the kid doing the exact same thing. All that aside, where do you think moral less adults come from if not kids that were never held accountable?

If a kid breaks something it'll get scolded and taught otherwise. Same goes for a fight. If an adult does it, he will face harsher punishment as he should've learned not to do such things earlier(like.. when he was a kid).

 SHUPPET wrote:
I also like how you decided all this for him, even though you like the rest of us have no idea hence why I asked him the question and not you ...

Wow, sorry for trying to give my opinion to fuel the conversation, I thought this was Americaa forum thread. Where's Randy when you need him?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Are you sure it's ME who is the one that is too emotionally attached to this debate dude? Lol

I'm not, really. It was you who came into the thread calling people spoiled brats that only want to show off and feel superior making you sound like you held some profound grudge and/or were angry.

I especially would never have a problem with playing against recasts of OOP models. You may technically be "stealing" the original IP, but there is absolutely no possible way that you are eliminating any kind of profit going to GW when dealing with a model they refuse to sell anymore.

It's like my "illegal" download of the 2nd edition Battle Bible for 40K 2nd edition, that has all the rules and all the mechanical stats from every codex. Really? I'm somehow "stealing" from GW, when they have made the active choice to stop making any profit whatsoever off 2nd edition material, starting about 15 years ago? Only the largest White Knight ever would defend that.

Technically recasts are within the same light as selling secondhand miniatures. Neither exchange gives any monetary gain to the parent company, it's just that recasting is a little more dirty-seeming. But both are toxic to the company if you are only interested in the money involved, even though I would gladly buy a secondhand miniature.

 Klerych wrote:
Remember that recasting is still illegal and it's a crime. Some people consider crimes morally wrong and might have moral barriers against playing with someone who is using illegal pieces.

Can you link me to the Dutch law that says it's illegal to buy models from a Chinese recaster?

Isn't continuing to play with the young person doing it, just the opposite of scolding them or teaching them that it's morally wrong?
At best, you are allowing yourself to draw a very very thin line between grey and black, a line that you did not allow anyone else to draw based on their own ethical perspective.

The post didn't seem at all morally influenced to me based on that fact, regardless I did even state that I was asking him for an answer because all I had was speculation. Further speculation as to the meaning, delivered as though it was an informed answer, seems nothing more than a way to further your own standpoint, one that was already clear and that you inadvertently only served to make weaker with moral exceptions that you decided are ok but did not allow for the rest of us the same luxury of having any sort of exceptions to the ethics of the situation at all.

Yes I'd love to play them. I'm willing to play against proxies, Lego stand-ins, and all that jazz. Anything that gets the game more populated.

The one exception is if they're trying to do it to run an unbound 10 riptide list or something like that. :p

I would only allow recasts of OOP models. You are not stealing what's being refused to be sold, especially when the material in question is gaming pawns. You are not reproducing Ming vases to sell for huge sums of money.

Recasting current models is stealing, as there are legitimate ways to get unlimited amounts of the models.

But there should be no reason to only allow the few people who originally bought some random Squat figure that was never produced in any kind of large quantity to have the only fun painting and playing with that figure.

It's the same as distributing the rules for games that are out of production. The only reason a company like GW would stop us from doing something like that is sheer pettiness, as it would literally do nothing but get their name out there even more and let more people enjoy some part of their IP, but with absolutely no work on their part with items they have no interest in supporting any more.

Kangodo wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
Remember that recasting is still illegal and it's a crime. Some people consider crimes morally wrong and might have moral barriers against playing with someone who is using illegal pieces.

Can you link me to the Dutch law that says it's illegal to buy models from a Chinese recaster?

Never said that buying recasts is illegal. I said that being the one that recasts and sells is. :-)

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I especially would never have a problem with playing against recasts of OOP models. You may technically be "stealing" the original IP, but there is absolutely no possible way that you are eliminating any kind of profit going to GW when dealing with a model they refuse to sell anymore.

It's like my "illegal" download of the 2nd edition Battle Bible for 40K 2nd edition, that has all the rules and all the mechanical stats from every codex. Really? I'm somehow "stealing" from GW, when they have made the active choice to stop making any profit whatsoever off 2nd edition material, starting about 15 years ago? Only the largest White Knight ever would defend that.

Well, I guess it's a lot different with discontinued stuff that no longer brings any profit to the owner of the IP and I don't think that anyone stated otherwise in this thread. :-)

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Technically recasts are within the same light as selling secondhand miniatures. Neither exchange gives any monetary gain to the parent company, it's just that recasting is a little more dirty-seeming. But both are toxic to the company if you are only interested in the money involved, even though I would gladly buy a secondhand miniature.

I don't think you are right here. A second hand miniature has been purchased from GW in the first place either directly or by the LGS owner who sold it further. Recasts on the other hand were never bought from GW in the first place, there's a huge difference in my opinion.

It's easiest explained on the book example. You write a book, someone buys one, sells it further. You got the money for that book. Few books sold, few books sold further on the market later. Then you have this situation: you wrote a book, someone bought it, then photocopied it and started selling at half the price of your book despite you being the one who wrote it and the one who holds the rights to sell it. Now he makes profit off your work with almost no effort put in as you did all the development, research, quality control, spell checking and writing, not to mention time spent on it. Every book sold that way hurts you because at least some of those books would've been bought from you, so you're looking at pretty real losses, even if they're not physical.

Why do people care so much about corporations? Especially about a corporation that views it's own fanbase with disdain and thinks our favorite part of the hobby is buying things? Honestly, it's GW's own fault if people see counterfeits as appealing as they do.

I don't think you are right here. A second hand miniature has been purchased from GW in the first place either directly or by the LGS owner who sold it further. Recasts on the other hand were never bought from GW in the first place, there's a huge difference in my opinion.

That's why I support in only for OOP models.

In not producing something any more, GW has absolved themselves of any interest in making any more money off of the material. So if they get pissed because someone makes recasts of it, I guess they should have kept selling it if they are so worried about the money.

Where do you draw the line between recasting say 60 space hulk Genestealers for your army? GW no longer stocks them and it's quite likely someone would prefer their aesthetics, however GW does stock a current option for the model to be used in games of 40k, and you just denied them the sale of 60 quite costly miniatures, that you will still be using for the exact same purpose and effect that they design and sell current Genestealer stock for?


Assuming for a second GW was a company fair to it's customers that everyone is satisfied with, I don't think I have an opinion on this yet. Asking because I'm genuinely curious once again.

What if I want to recast something from Necromunda or Epic? Those models have no modern equivalents to replace something original and hard to obtain. Or Squats? Or some Zoats? Or a Space Marine with a shuriken catapult or autocannon from Rogue Trader?

That's my line of thinking.

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. I'm not pushing forth an opinion with that post as I don't have one yet, I'm merely asking you and others who feel that recasting OOP is ok but recasting regular models is less ethical, where do you draw the line?

 Paradigm wrote:
To be honest, I'd have no issue with it. I appreciate how expensive this hobby can be, and if someone has found a cheaper way to have fun with it then all power to them. I probably wouldn't buy them myself, but I'd not stop anyone from using them.

When it comes down to it, my policy with models/rules/counts-as/anything game related is 'if you're a decent guy, then anything goes. If you're a git, feth off'.

I agree honestly I'm always hoping for more players so if someone finds a cheaper way to play then power to them and it just comes down to the player. If hes a piece of gak then why bother playing with him.