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.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
you will end up with no toys to play with at all, for once GW IP is worthless, the counterfeiters will simple turn to some other, more valuable IP.

3d printing which isn't too far off will result in anyone with a bit of CAD experience designing models that anyone can print from home. Like with mods for PC games, the good ones will get a lot of development and rival legitimate games in quality. People won't bother with recasting minis at that stage, they'll just print them. Far from being no toys to play with, it will be the opposite - there will be a huge assortment of toys to play with from existing and new ranges. No one wanting to produce a good set of SC2 minis? No problem!

!Exalted some of your posts Avatar. Not only am I learning plenty, everything you've drawn mine and certainly others attention to seems to all hold up when I'm doing further research. You also providing references is very helpful too. Please keep responding to the counter points, you are doing it very coherently, there is a lot of knowledge on this page.

Peregrine wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Which by GW's stance they can not produce models for GW games or in some cases models that "might" be used in or with a GW product.

And there you go again, using an absurd definition of the market. The product in question is gaming miniatures, not space marine kits. Banning other manufacturers from producing copies of GW kits is not the same thing as banning them from the market.

And no, there's no "might" about the companies GW's lawyers have tried to shut down. Whether or not their actions are legal those companies were blatantly producing models that were intended for GW games and only GW games. Nobody with any common sense believes that those "scifi power armor shoulder pads" were meant for anything other than GW space marine models.

So what if someone makes a custom product for an existing product line. Your argument here is as absurd as suggesting that Ford or GM could sue a Custom wheel manufacturer. You just argued my point for me. If little bobby wants to take a model he has already paid for and then pay more for something to make them different that is his right as an owner of the product. The company didn't copy an existing kit, they made their own. Yet Gw tried to shut them down. This is how GW has stifled competition.

For a guy who was arguing how much the expenditures affect an established company, you see awfully dismissive of a small start-ups investment. Do you think that GW just sprang up with 15 40k factions in one night or did they start of with a small line of products ans expand? Imagine if a company had been hounding GW for IP infringement when they just started. Say the Aliens franchise decided to go after them for Tyranids. How about D&D or Tolkien going after their Fantasy line?

Peregrine wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:Also note that you may feel that current IP laws exist for good reason, I and many disagree with you. Having watched GW and other corporations exploit the system in a constant effort to prevent the emergence of potential competitors has lead many to not have such a blindly positive view towards these laws.

Sigh. No. GW is not using IP law to prevent competition, unless you define the market as "making space marine kits for Warhammer 40k". Companies are free to make their own competing 28mm scifi miniatures games, and plenty have. And the competing games that have failed have failed on their own merits, not because GW's lawyers shut them down.

Only recently. Before the Chapterhouse decision, GW would go after a model company for using the name Space Marine (regardless of what the model looked like) as soon as the models started to sell. Small start-up companies can neither afford to change their product names or lawsuits.
I think that a non-model company that mjust made an organizational tool is a good example here. How GW jacked with Army Builder.

Peregrine wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:Obviously you missed the part where the thread and pricing within it are 8 years old AND that I stated Pre-tax.

You still haven't bothered to read your own article. The estimated profit is $5-7, even assuming that inflation doesn't exist and 100% of the price increase went directly into profit that's still only about $30, not the $60 you claimed. Please at least attempt to understand the sources you're citing, and don't just pull context-free numbers out of them without having any clue what those numbers mean.

I have read it, you have failed to look closely at what I have said about that linked page.

My numbers are pre-tax and closer to reality than the fanboy page I used. I used that page so that you couldn't claim that I was using a slanted source.

The page proved what I had said about design and prototyping costs. So now you are trying to deflect by obstinately refusing to take note the conditions and means by which I stated that my numbers were derived.

My numbers are "Pre-Tax"

My numbers do not include shipping because I am looking at the numbers from the even playing field of both GW and recasters being internet retail businesses. Yes, GW has brick and mortar stores but they have been pushing there online sales. So I am doing what is proper and looking at profits that are earned in the same way rather than skewing the numbers with a false assumption that every model GW sells comes from a Brick and mortar.(which the linked page assumes)

The linked page also assumed that all the models were sold wholesale price like what is done indy retailers.

You might begin to see now why and how my numbers are different

Peregrine wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:Erecting barriers to competition so that a company can charge what ever they want without fear of competition is NOT how the free market system is supposed to work.

This is not a barrier to competition, it's a barrier to stealing another company's work. Competing companies are free to make their own miniatures, they just can't recast GW kits.

No, it is a barrier when a struggling new company gets sued over the use of a generic term. Forcing new companies into renaming parts of their game or expensive leagal battles is a very aggresive way of stifling competition.

Peregrine wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:Except for GW's past attempts to shut down any company that makes a model that looks anything remotely similar to a 40K model.

No, it really isn't. The companies that GW targets are blatantly making 40k parts, and the "similarity" argument is nothing more than an attempt to satisfy the IP law requirements involving differences from the "copied" product/design. There's a pretty good argument that what they're doing is in fact legal, but let's not pretend that GW is going around issuing legal threats to everyone who dares to make a scifi power armor miniature.

You're right. They currently aren't doing such after getting their asses handed to them in a couple of cases. Before that they most certainly were. If GW saw a new unaffiliated model company was gaining traction they went after them on some very flimsy grounds.
Just because they have stopped now does not excuse past action or change the detrimental effect that GW has had on fair competition in the miniatures market.

Peregrine wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote: Also, would like to correct you on something. A company does not have to be the only one of its type to be considered a monopoly. There are many instances of company's being ruled as trusts when they had competitors still in the market. If that company could be viewed as to having control over their entire market in a manner that stifles their competitors then they can be declared as to having a monopoly.

Yes, but GW isn't even close to being in that situation. They don't control their market or stifle competition, they're just bigger than the competition right now. In fact, given how GW is losing market share and struggling to avoid complete disaster the claim that they're a stifling monopoly is just laughably wrong.

I agree that GW is losing market share and is doing a great job of imploding. Makes me almost believe in karma.

I disagree that GW never stifled competition and never dominated the market. The fact that after years of stagnation they are still the dominant miniature model company clearly says otherwise.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

A company does not have to be the only one of its type to be considered a monopoly. There are many instances of company's being ruled as trusts when they had competitors still in the market. If that company could be viewed as to having control over their entire market in a manner that stifles their competitors then they can be declared as to having a monopoly.

Sorry, this is so far from reality that it is laughable.

Competition laws exist so that people selling identical products - ie gas, oil, and other utilities - are (hopefully) forced into genuine competition.

What you seem to be fantasising about is other companies being able to copy GW's work, in order to increase competition. This is a nonsense; all it will do it stem the supply of original work.

Once again, while I personally wouldn't have a problem with a decent oppo fielding recasts, the arguments here, in favour of recasts, are principally from people who are supporting thieves, because they don't want to pay too much for their toys.

These apologists and schadenfreude-freaks don't seem to understand the consequence; you will end up with no toys to play with at all, for once GW IP is worthless, the counterfeiters will simple turn to some other, more valuable IP.

Microsoft was split up not for identical products, rather for dominating the entire computing market.

What is laughably sad is your inability to understand that anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws are there to prevent one company from dominating the market and thus be allowed to set the market price point.

And there you go using the GW white knight/apologist term of thieves for a practice that is often completely legal.

The fact that you are this far in the thread and have yet to review the case law that shows recasting for personal non-profit use is absolutely legal. Also, you might want to be more specific in that those who sell unlicensed copies might be in violation of IP law.

Basically, Violating IP law is not the same as theft. They are two very different things under the law and the quicker you accept that difference the easy it will be for you to properly communicate of this subject.

Stealing IP is theft. End of story.

Don't give me the GW White Knight bull; it's nothing to do with that. Personally, I make my living via IP.

It's all very well saying that theft of something intangible is not really theft; unless you understand that it's actually people who make those intangible things. If you're in a modern, developed economy, that too depends on modern, intangible things.

The preceding post attempts to take a legal perspective which is, like many previous arguments, laughable. Especially the phrase "Violating IP law *(?) is not the same as theft," when anyone with the most cursory understanding of copyright knows this to be the case, and that action against IP theft is a major priority for most first world law enforcement agencies.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Stealing IP is theft. End of story.

Lawrence Lessig, along with many other copyleft and free software activists, has criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original).[51][52] Other arguments along these lines claim that unlike the situation with tangible property, there is no natural scarcity of a particular idea or information: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original. Stephan Kinsella has objected to intellectual property on the grounds that the word "property" implies scarcity, which may not be applicable to ideas.[53]

 azreal13 wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Stealing IP is theft. End of story.

Lawrence Lessig, along with many other copyleft and free software activists, has criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original).[51][52] Other arguments along these lines claim that unlike the situation with tangible property, there is no natural scarcity of a particular idea or information: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original. Stephan Kinsella has objected to intellectual property on the grounds that the word "property" implies scarcity, which may not be applicable to ideas.[53]

You've quoted an argument, not a law.

I've quoted an argument that, by it's existence, means your statement is false.

IP "theft" is not termed that in the majority of legal contexts, and I've stated some opinions that support the idea that is shouldn't be considered as such.

It's a bad idea to throw around absolutes, it's a worse one when they're wrong.

Taking into account profits without each operational costs is laughable.

People don't understand businesses, spouting income as a point for debate etc really annoys me because it is not relevant to anything.

For a start, Chinaworld reproductions will incur significantly less labor costs considering economic differences, and the fact these resellers probably don't have things like HR department, Finance department, Project managers, Sculptors, all the meeting times, covering holiday time, covering paid lunch times etc. as the originator, GW spends a lot more than resellers producing any model, regardless of material cost.

There are many more factors no one bothers to consider, it is quite complicated.

Not that I am particular against chinaworld, but people should make attempt to support the company, where they like the game where they can. Because at the end of the day, the lack of I/O means some writers job is made redundant and such, not that they take much of a hit. Supporting recasts is supporting low wages in your own country. (For UK people.)

I did think Americans were more aware of these economic impacts (but care more about their own country... and they should).

To me how somoepne got that own models is not so much my concern, long as not stolen but recasting is hardly the greatest crime in world... So it's a not 100% legal in its source but who am I to judge is they may not be so well off but want to enjoy a hobby.

People here may moan more at come can dreadnortughts etc.

 azreal13 wrote:
I've quoted an argument that, by it's existence, means your statement is false.

IP "theft" is not termed that in the majority of legal contexts, and I've stated some opinions that support the idea that is shouldn't be considered as such.

It's a bad idea to throw around absolutes, it's a worse one when they're wrong.

Strange it needs to be pointed out that, while there might will be academics who argue against a particular law, whether a particular act is defined as a theft is down to the law, not to academics or lobbyists.

You can argue against the law all you want but don't attempt to deny its existence. Bear in mind that this particular thread is, more specifically, about counterfeit goods, on which the legal situation is even more clear-cut; it's a criminal offence, not a civil offence, and is subject to imprisonment in both the US and UK.

Yeah...

The law terms it infringement, not theft?

At least, in the few minutes I'm willing to dedicate to Google to check it out.

By all means, if you've got bona fide sources that aren't just opinions of parties with vested interests and not even pretending to attempt to maintain a sense of objectivity, feel free to share them.

 azreal13 wrote:
I've quoted an argument that, by it's existence, means your statement is false.

But.. you quoted an opinion as a counter-argument for.. the law? How is that any logical?

No, I quoted an opinion as a counter to an opinion stated as fact.

I'm not arguing IP infringement isn't illegal, I'm arguing it is a different animal than "theft." This isn't a yes or no debate, so "stealing IP is theft. End of" is not correct, and I supplied a quote which outlined the reasons why IP infringement may be considered different to theft.

Being a law student, I can tell you that the whole IP infringement is theft argument is still very grey. Theft means that you deny the other party from something (I steal your car, therefore im. denying you from using it.) However the same can't be said about IP issues, because i'm still able to us e it if someone else has copied it.

Here's a thought just to try and keep the discussion from getting bogged down.

You pay someone to paint some models, they supply the models, and they deliver them at the price quoted and at a standard that you are happy with.

Now, assuming you weren't explicitly charged separately for the models at RRP, but were quoted a price for a completed commission, do you care if the models are recast?

Everyone would be annoyed at receiving a item of lesser value advertised as a item of greater value. It's called conning people out of money.

It doesn't matter if I'm happy with the result - I had decided on the agreement the price was worth the miniatures and paint job, when making that decision I would have factored in the price of the miniatures at RRP (Or commonly 20% off), in my mind I've payed a lot more for the paint job than I wanted.

While some replicas can not be distinguished from the GW made ones, some can (usually through material). These also have a lower resale value.

Much bread tastes exactly the same, most uses the same ingredients, many are same in weight but they are priced differently.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Stealing IP is theft. End of story.

No, it's not. Theft is a criminal offense, and IP violations are civil ones. It's like saying "stealing IP is committing drunk driving, end of story". They're 2 different things. Words have meanings. You want to say it's morally equivalent, you're on more solid ground.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
You've quoted an argument, not a law.

Oh - I can help you with that.

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

---

So far as myself, I buy recasts, and sometimes recast some simpler things myself. I don't have an elaborate justification for how I'm actually the good guy, I know it's wrong* and just don't care. I don't feel guilty when downloading a Game of Thrones torrent either, or downloading a codex PDF when I buy the hardcover. /shrug

I have a 3D printed Herald of Nurgle, and several recasts from china in my daemons. A general rule of thumb is that if I have it, and its forgeworld, its recast. Only a few things in my army that are GW are recasts, simply because the recast only cost a little less than my local discount, and generally isn't worth it.

Recently I grabbed some old Wulfen models and the old games day wolf priest.

Dipping slightly into the theft argument:
Re-cast robs the IP holder of the sales he could have had if re-cast wasn't done.

On topic:
GW is strangling the hobby with their price points (new Mek Guns are 18 points base, but cost $45 each...). They have driven players to this issue. I will not hesitate if asked to play against them.

If they returned to the old days of better pricing (2000 point army costing less than $300), I would frown on re-casting.

 Farseer Pef wrote:
Dipping slightly into the theft argument:
Re-cast robs the IP holder of the sales he could have had if re-cast wasn't done.

This is only assuming that the person who chose to buy re-casts had the intention to buy the original model anyway - and often, that is not the case.

 Farseer Pef wrote:
Re-cast robs the IP holder of the sales he could have had if re-cast wasn't done.

No. Just because someone downloads a song, or buys a recast, doesn't mean they would have bought a legitimate version of the same product if the bootleg wasn't available.

It's like the music company arguing that they are out the price of a CD everytime someone downloads a song.

 Farseer Pef wrote:
Dipping slightly into the theft argument:
Re-cast robs the IP holder of the sales he could have had if re-cast wasn't done.

Actually it's not that simple. Some of the models would've still been bought, sure, but some wouldn't if people decided to not buy them because of the price. Don't think there's an even remotely reliable ratio on how much of them would be still sold, even if the price was higher(and in case of recasts it's over two times higher given that most of them sell at 50% of already ~20% discounted FLGS retailer prices.

 Farseer Pef wrote:
On topic:
GW is strangling the hobby with their price points (new Mek Guns are 18 points base, but cost $45 each...). They have driven players to this issue. I will not hesitate if asked to play against them.

If they returned to the old days of better pricing (2000 point army costing less than $300), I would frown on re-casting.

Wonder how does it transfer over the $5 profit per Land Raider thing. Of course some models are deliberately absurdly highly priced, but given the fact that -everything- is more expensive now, I guess that 40k wouldn't be unaffected by that. Here even bread was affected by price changes over the years and the currency hasn't really changed it's value.

 Farseer Pef wrote:
Dipping slightly into the theft argument:
Re-cast robs the IP holder of the sales he could have had if re-cast wasn't done.

On topic:
GW is strangling the hobby with their price points (new Mek Guns are 18 points base, but cost $45 each...). They have driven players to this issue. I will not hesitate if asked to play against them.

If they returned to the old days of better pricing (2000 point army costing less than $300), I would frown on re-casting.

Bold part, while that is a symptom that not really the problem with their price, it is the cost to produce the item vs sell cost. Unlike other company that sell based on production cost, GW base their cost on "what we boost in power" worse part they don't even drop the price when the nerf the unit the made better to up the price. The don't even hide it in a once a year increase anymore, now it whenever they feel like it..

Sigvatr wrote:
This is only assuming that the person who chose to buy re-casts had the intention to buy the original model anyway - and often, that is not the case.

So if I say I don't want to buy something because of the price ... do I get it for free? It's not like they are losing a sale.

adamsouza wrote:
No. Just because someone downloads a song, or buys a recast, doesn't mean they would have bought a legitimate version of the same product if the bootleg wasn't available.

It's like the music company arguing that they are out the price of a CD everytime someone downloads a song.

You (impersonal you) didn't write and compose that song. You didn't create the original mold for that WH40k model. The sales lost may not be 1 for 1, but you are obtaining something from another person's work while skipping out on paying them.

Tell me how that isn't theft.

Unless they are selling it for profit, I would have no issue.

I refuse buy a $115 Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I scratch build a Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I buy a competitor's model to proxy a Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I buy a bootleg $60 Morkanaut from China, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.

In all of those scenarios, GW gets the same amount of money from me.

GW doesn't care about me beyond how much money they can get out of me.
Forgive me if I don't care GW is out a few dollars If I want to field a Morkanaut without buying it from them.

 Farseer Pef wrote:

Sigvatr wrote:
This is only assuming that the person who chose to buy re-casts had the intention to buy the original model anyway - and often, that is not the case.

So if I say I don't want to buy something because of the price ... do I get it for free? It's not like they are losing a sale.

If you can copy it without any direct impact on the maker or third party (ie. not stealing it or hacing into their servers to download it) - yes. Copying for personal use is explicitly legal in a number of countries too.

 adamsouza wrote:
I refuse buy a $115 Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I scratch build a Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I buy a competitor's model to proxy a Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I buy a bootleg $60 Morkanaut from China, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.

In all of those scenarios, GW gets the same amount of money from me.

GW doesn't care about me beyond how much money they can get out of me.
Forgive me if I don't care GW is out a few dollars If I want to field a Morkanaut without buying it from them.

But if you buy a recast Morkanaut, you will probably need a primer, some paint and perhaps a Mek to support it?
So they do make money off of you!

I am personally not interested in buying an Imperial Knight for 110 euro.
But I will get a recast for 50 euro and spend 60 on GW because that Knight makes me excited to play again.
The alternative would be that I get bored of the hobby and spend nothing on them.

 adamsouza wrote:
I refuse buy a $115 Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I scratch build a Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I buy a competitor's model to proxy a Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I buy a bootleg $60 Morkanaut from China, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.

In all of those scenarios, GW gets the same amount of money from me.

GW doesn't care about me beyond how much money they can get out of me.
Forgive me if I don't care GW is out a few dollars If I want to field a Morkanaut without buying it from them.

While I am all for recasts, the only downside to your methods is money going to the recaster doesnt support any new ideas etc. There is no incentive to make models if its going to be copied and sold for cheaper than you. That is the only downside to buying recasts and thats what people mean when it hurts the hobby.

But as I said ages ago. Recasts are fine in my book, as long as its limited to GW. Until GW changes that is (they wont though...).

 adamsouza wrote:
I refuse buy a $115 Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.
I scratch build a Morkanaut, GW makes $0.00 on Morkanaut from me.

Well, it's not a good example - GW actually always encouraged scratchbuilding and kitbashing as a part of the hobby. I mean.. that's the whole point behind looted wagons and everything Orks. Same goes for scenery and other stuff Gee-Dubs suggested us to do ever since the beginning. Not sure about 7th, but I think that even in 6th there was a paragraph about making stuff like scenery yourself. And I see nothing wrong with that, given the fact that people will see something like that and feel like fielding one too, but some of them won't be brave enough to test their scratchbuilding skills and/or will like the official model more and buy it. I mean.. the Gorkanaut is a pretty cool model with lots of details - knowing that mine would never be cool and that I'd spend long hours on making one I'd probably buy it. Just like I couldn't make a scratchbuilt Knight that'd look even remotely quarter-decent without spending 100$ of my time on making it and not all of this time would be spent in a fun manner. And even if others don't buy it, some of them may just start 40k seeing how cool it is and how awesome is being able to scratchbuild some epic gak for your army, probably buying a bunch of GW kits later on as they start to play the game. Win-win for GW, even if they virtually won't sell that one model!