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.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

azreal13 wrote:Except that clearly isn't the decision, because there aren't just two options.

That's a fine theoretical debate, but without spending any great time I can add two real world options to that list

Buy a legitimate competing product from another company (admittedly depends on how narrow your definition of 'product' is) and keep your morals

Buy an illegitimate product from a non-official producer and "hang" your morals, assuming you consider it an immoral action in the first place (which has been mentioned can have cultural and personal factors affecting that consideration)

How are those 'two real world options added'? Your first option of going to a competing company is just "not buying the company's product and keeping your morals." And the other option is just saying that my second option is dependent on personal morality, which... frankly, is crap.

azreal13 wrote:
Yes.

Nobody is taking anything from anyone.

IP infringement is not stealing, so unless you think people are flying to Beijing, breaking into someone's garage and loading themselves up with recast models, it isn't stealing.

IP infringement is a civil matter, theft is criminal.

It is breaking the law (potentially) but it isn't theft.

I don't really care about the fancy words of lawyers. Stealing someone's brain work is stealing just as if you were stealing the notebook it was written down in.

Please settle on one argument, if you're asserting that buying recasts is morally wrong, fine, but as has been said, that is a personal line in the sand.

If you're going to try and argue the legalities of it, don't hand wave away responses which illustrate that what you said wasn't correct.

If anything, I'm "stealing" from WotC, Mantic and FFG when I buy recast GW models, because that's where my money would be going if recasts didn't exist.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
This argument has repeated itself for so long that I'm hallucinating : I'm imagining all those words like "Forge World" and "GW" I can see on the main recast site, right in front of me.

Gotta say I admire your front for posting that there's no attempt to pass a recast off as an original, right next to a post that boasts you're fine with recasts, as no on can tell them from an original!

They also have a disclaimer stating they aren't original, which can also be inferred from the ridiculously low selling price.

No, you're not hallucinating this post, I'm just restating the bit from my previous post you conveniently disregarded because it didn't fit your argument.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I don't really care about the fancy words of lawyers. Stealing someone's brain work is stealing just as if you were stealing the notebook it was written down in.

It largely just comes down to an argument of semantics. Legally, it's not stealing. That's because lawyers have to have very specific definitions of things. The more general common-tongue definition of stealing is broader and can encompass what we're talking about here.

I still just tend to think as a society it is beneficial to pay the money to the person who actually created the content or simply take your business to another legitimate company. I know that different societies have different views on it, but I don't want to live in those different societies either. If I wanted to live in India or China, I'd move to India or China. As a western society (which I think most users on this board are from) I think we should be aiming to promote the arts by buying from the actual artists. If you don't like what the artist is producing, don't agree with the artist's price/terms, or don't like the company that is publishing/distributing the artist's works, go to a different artist.

The problem I see with the whole "civil disobedience" thing is that: a) while I agree copyright law is flawed, I think the principle of the artist maintaining some rights to their creation is a good way to go, b) at the end of the day, you aren't being disobedient to an oppressive government regime, you are being disobedient to a company that you don't like, a company which is trying to sell you entirely non-essential items for your entertainment, it's very hard to get past the "self entitled" to see the "righteous disobedience".

Now, if it's not illegal in your country to recast and/or purchase recasts, it just comes down to the supposed immorality of it, and that in the end is a personal choice and so I don't go harshly on people who do purchase recasts, it mostly just saddens me that we, as a society, are more self entitled to buy cheaper recasts from parasites than we are willing to support our own genuine artists.

As for playing a game... it's a game... when it comes to actually playing the game, I don't really care where your models came from.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
..it mostly just saddens me that we, as a society, are more self entitled to buy cheaper recasts from parasites than we are willing to support our own genuine artists.

Indeed. I am seeing older friends who are writers, photographers, musicians, who never made much money, having what they made stolen from them, living in, in at least one case, near penury. They weren't ripped off by Chinese recasters, but big companies like Hulton Getty, Google, and Amazon.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
..it mostly just saddens me that we, as a society, are more self entitled to buy cheaper recasts from parasites than we are willing to support our own genuine artists.

Indeed. I am seeing older friends who are writers, photographers, musicians, who never made much money, having what they made stolen from them, living in, in at least one case, near penury. They weren't ripped off by Chinese recasters, but big companies like Hulton Getty, Google, and Amazon.

I think any artist who is genuinely good at his trade could make more money just by putting his stuff on torrent sites with a link to a Paypal donate button than selling through publishing/distribution companies. The money they leech from both customers and artists must outweigh any losses to artists from piracy by orders of magnitude.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I think any artist who is genuinely good at his trade could make more money just by putting his stuff on torrent sites with a link to a Paypal donate button than selling through publishing/distribution companies. The money they leech from both customers and artists must outweigh any losses to artists from piracy by orders of magnitude.

I don't really think so. Maybe they could. Definitely a few lucky ones could the same way a few lucky ones get picked up by big publishers and put in the limelight, I think it would come down more to luck than skill. Certainly a few people that have already gotten famous of the backs of bigger companies could break off and go indie successfully. People tend to not notice stuff unless it's shoved in their face or they go specifically looking for it, that's why publishers/distributors exist in the first place, if it didn't work, artists wouldn't be willing to sign their lives away.

In the end, I think it's up to the artist to decide whether they are going to sign their lives away with a publisher/distributor and up to the customer to decide if they'll support the artist through the big bad company or simply support indies instead.

It's hard to get noticed, sure. But wouldn't more artists get noticed if the publishers weren't always jamming just a handful of the latest fad artists, picked for max profits rather than any real quality, down our throats? Obviously we can't just switch over overnight, but it'll happen.

Buying a Leman Russ from GW doesn't support the artist, though. The artist has been already paid for modeling the Leman Russ so buying a recast of it isn't stealing from him. Sure, supporting GW by buying their products ensures that the modeler remains employed at GW but that's really about it.

I'll repeat myself as I feel this need repeating: If recasters in China can make products of similar quality for much less is it really the consumers fault for opting for the option that costs less? I believe it's GW's fault for nickle and diming their consumers to the point where they've destroyed consumer loyalty and made the counterfeits as attractive as they are.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Buying a Leman Russ from GW doesn't support the artist, though. The artist has been already paid for modeling the Leman Russ so buying a recast of it isn't stealing from him. Sure, supporting GW by buying their products ensures that the modeler remains employed at GW but that's really about it.

Supporting the modeler by ensuring they stay employed at GW is still supporting the modeler. The modeler chose to do business that way.

And while I said artist, it isn't JUST the artist you're supporting. GW are still the ones doing the hard yards to get the product to you. The same thing happens with mainstream music and movies... people complain about the big budget companies but the big budget movies wouldn't exist without the big budget companies giving the money to the artists to create them and then spending millions on advertising to draw in the big money so that more big budget movies can be made.

If you don't want to support that infrastructure, IMO, you should just go indie instead.

I'll repeat myself as I feel this need repeating: If recasters in China can make products of similar quality for much less is it really the consumers fault for opting for the option that costs less?

Except they will ALWAYS be able to produce recasts cheaper. Not only because wages are less. The recasters aren't paying the artist who made the original, they aren't paying the writers who created the universe we all know and love, the recasters aren't putting money in to the hands of the FLGS who gives us a place to play, the recasters aren't putting anything back in to the system.

This is why I said I would rather we had a society that supports the content creators rather than the parasites who will always be able to make things cheaper.

I'm not going as far to say "consumers fault", IMO it's a society fault. Do we want to live in a society that doesn't support the arts? While we are thriving, I would prefer to live in one that does.

That's why I don't disagree with the ideal that copyright creates, even though I may disagree with the implementation of current copyright laws.

I believe it's GW's fault for nickle and diming their consumers to the point where they've destroyed consumer loyalty and made the counterfeits as attractive as they are.

It's certainly the fault of GW if gamers no longer want to buy their wares, however I still thing counterfeits are at best the "self entitled" option as it shows you DO still want their wares you just aren't willing to pay the people who actually brought those wares before you. Compared to the (IMO better) option of just buying from other artists who you agree with more.

I suppose this depends on whether or not you believe a person or an entity is entitled to reap the rewards of their labor just because they did that labor. Or, in other words, does the creator deserve compensation solely for the act of creation?

Certainly you can make an argument that someone is entitled to the reap the fruit of their labor. I dont. If someone can make your product for less and of similiar quality then tough. It is on the companies to make their products competitive. Customers have no moral obligation to keep them afloat.

Also, while it is true that popular products will have knock offs usually they will not be as popular because of consumer loyalty, a perception of superior quality or the product is in fact superior.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I still just tend to think as a society it is beneficial to pay the money to the person who actually created the content

This coincides with the initial goal of copyright - to encourage the creation of creative works for the enrichment of society. The mechanism by which it does that is by granting an artificial monopoly on the production of those works from which the artists can derive an income.

or simply take your business to another legitimate company.

This has a direct and observable impact in free software for example, where everyone being willing and able to pirate windows means there's far less support for linux than there otherwise would be. This is much to Microsofts advantage so while they make token moves against the larger counterfeiting they really don't want the alternative which is a break from MS towards linux. You could easily make the comparison to the tabletop games industry where GW is the behemoth and by buying recasts you're keeping their game the one that's played at the expense of other games that would otherwise win out. I mention this more as a point of interest rather than relevance I think hehe.

As a western society (which I think most users on this board are from) I think we should be aiming to promote the arts by buying from the actual artists. If you don't like what the artist is producing, don't agree with the artist's price/terms, or don't like the company that is publishing/distributing the artist's works, go to a different artist.

Here I agree in goal (promoting arts) but not in mechanism (copyright laws). The current copyright laws are ridiculously broken and stifle the production of creative works. The best way we have to get change is by ignoring the law in specific instances where we know the companies abuse it to the detriment of their customers and society at large. Look at the US prohibition on alcohol and their war on drugs with marijuana - prohibition ended and marijuana is being legalised because people just didn't obey the laws, so it does work.

There are viable alternatives to supporting the arts that don't involve crippling innovation. Kickstarter and patreon are good examples of this - if people want something they "patronise" it, the way artists used to make their money.

The problem I see with the whole "civil disobedience" thing is that: a) while I agree copyright law is flawed, I think the principle of the artist maintaining some rights to their creation is a good way to go, b) at the end of the day, you aren't being disobedient to an oppressive government regime, you are being disobedient to a company that you don't like, a company which is trying to sell you entirely non-essential items for your entertainment, it's very hard to get past the "self entitled" to see the "righteous disobedience".

Copyright laws are unenforceable in the digital age and results in ridiculous laws and crippling of innovation like we have now so no I don't agree that this is a good way to go. We need a huge rethink on copyright and intellectual property. The companies (ie. disney) bought the laws so yeah, we are being disobedient to the originators of the laws. No need to drag down an otherwise good post by throwing accusations of self entitlement however.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I don't really care about the fancy words of lawyers.

Then concede and walk away, because you don't get to move the goal posts and make up your own definitions.

When it comes to ethics or moral philosophy there are basically three approaches that people use to figure out what they should do or endorse.

Duty based ethics - these are rules or obligations that usually come from an outside source. Sometimes people have religiously based ones. Others have a general "how I was raised" notion of their duties. Others think about principles that define what is important to them and have duties based off of those.

Virtue based ethics - these are where the primary consideration is what a given act or actions says about you. How would you or others describe someone who does that? What does it mean about who you are?

Consequential ethics - these are concerned with actual results in the real world. The consequences and effects of actions are seen as more important than following rules or worrying about the meaning of an action to one's identity.

Most people operate with a combination of the three above combined with some pragmatic ethics that recognizes that all ethics are social and can change with the situation and times.

Here's the thing: You can justify or condemn any action with any of them. Examples:

Getting something without paying the original creator is wrong
-- A duty based approach that defines what you should do.

Thrift and saving money is more important than corporate rights.
-- A duty based approach that justifies buying from recasters.

Buying from recasters shows that I'm economically free.
-- A virtue based approach that justifies buying from recasters.

Buying from recasters shows that I'm cheap and cut corners.
-- A virtue based approach that condemsn buying from recasters

Buying from recasters will drive GW out of business.
-- a consequentialist approach that could either justify or condemn recasting based on whether or not you think it's a good thing that GW gets less money from you.

The end result of the moral issue is that you are basically deciding what you value and telling a story about it. Perhaps it will be a story about what it says about you or someone else (saving money is smart! or buying only legit products shows I'm respectful of creative types). Perhaps it'll be a story about what you think your skydaddy wants (Thou shalt not steal!). Perhaps it'll be a story about desired end results (every dollar denied to GW is one step closer to forcing them to change).

Even if you are a moral realist who thinks there's an objective correct answer to the recasting question, you still find yourself in the position of telling yourself a story about how you arrive at that conclusion and what it means for you and your community and what you and your community ought to value. And when it comes down to convincing others of your opinion, you're going to need to present a compelling story about why they should agree with you.

---

Im going to say it plain and simple if gw is going to bleed me dry.I will not buy any of their products.But in forgechino I can get 3 riptides for the price of 1 gw riptide.GW can just go away and as always with GW products fans will keep 40k alive.I will not support their way of making profit.If i recast o bought recast from someone else and knowing it will hurt GW i will do it all the time.GW needs to get their stuff stright.how much does a WD cost nowadays?

Which one, the weekly one that costs almost half of the old monthly one, or the monthly one that costs almost double?

Well, I'd ask where he got them since I want some recast sisters! lol

Maybe I just want to see the world burn...bring on the recasts!

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Well, I'd ask where he got them since I want some recast sisters! lol

You won't get answers in the open. Discussing specific recasters (including links and whatnot) is a no, no.

Well the internet is my friend still, I will find them!
I am fine with knock off movies, recast dolls and recast warhammer, I don't own any recast dolls or warhammer but the option should be there I think.

Without providing any links, 4chan's a good place to start. That place has no morals, no decency and no sense of humanity.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Without providing any links, 4chan's a good place to start. That place has no morals, no decency and no sense of humanity.

You will only find one more wretched hive of scum and villainy - GW HQ.

Supporting the modellers by giving money to GW so they keep employing their modellers is really not what you are doing at all. While GW lives, the modellers will be employed. If they are failing as a business, the inevitable will eventually happen and the business will collapse, be it because of poor pricing or management elsewhere. If there is such a profitable lane for recasters, it's due to poor pricing. If the lack of incoming funds is enough for them to close doors, it's not because recasters stole all their profits it's because of the sales they lost due to bad judgement on their choice of price.

It's is POSSIBLE but extremely unlikely and implausible that they are priced exactly on the tipping point, where their prices are so high people are disheartened by it enough to move to recasters, but still low enough to buy anyway if the option of recasters did not exist, and balanced so that a large enough margin of their customer base have this experience (and it would have to be quite large), to be relevant to whether or not the company closes doors. This is the only situation where your choice to dump overly inflated sums of cash into the wallets of GWs unappreciative fat cats ever does anything that could classify as "supporting the artist". If the company's prices are consistently so wrong to the point that they have to close shop (which in this case is quite possible) then it's a inevitable outcome. Trying to fight the tide by being the people that still support the company out of a sense of duty to the artist, is highly unlikely to have the effect of even giving them a single extra year of salary that they would have otherwise missed out on, assuming everyone who felt the same, did the same. It would be an incredible twist of fate if this was the case and the financial balance hinged entirely upon it, but even if it did you would never know, and you could instead rest easy knowing that there is a 99% chance that the only person you "supported" with your decision to purchase legitimately instead of recasts strictly to support the artist, is the guy who actually took advantage of the artist and refused to sell his stuff for a deserving price. Which would also have the effect of securing stable employment for him under a well managed company with a focus on the longterm and not the short (the main thing relevant to an employee on a salary), as well as allowing him to share his work with more people with the appreciation of his craft.


Keeping your morals intact being the deciding decision between buying GW or buying recasts makes sense to buy from GW, if that's what you need to do to sleep easier, nobody can tell you otherwise. On the same page, you can't tell people they will feel the same (they won't). I think it's time Hivefleet accepted this, and realised he has very strong morals that the average person does not consider an immoral act (as undeniably proven by this poll).
However, if supporting the artist being the deciding factor, you should probably buy the recasts for your own sake. It's ridiculously unlikely to have an effect on the artist.

i was chatting to a mate who worked there around 2010/2011/2012 and he said GW make a 70% mark-up on some of their products.

the more i hear about their business decisions, the more i worry for my favorite sci-fi franchise. :(

I thought this post said "Would you play against someone who is using racist models."

If you love the model, buy the model. If you don't want the model, there are other amazing models and lines out there. And they *can* be linked here.

I don't think I'd refuse to play against a recaster, but I'd rather they didn't recast. I love to see non-standard models, and care not one whit whether they came from GW or not, but I'd rather the entity that produced the design be the one who sells the model.

I've seen whole non-GW armies. I wish there were more options out there though. At the end of the day, if it's worth your money to have a model, pay for it. If not, find another model. Or convert. Or whatever.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Depends if the model is oop.

GW has gotten rid of so many models in the past few years.

This.

Strictly speaking, it is copyright infringement.

Practically and realistically speaking, GW IS NOT MAKING OR SELLING THE PRODUCT ANYMORE. They might.......maybe......someday ......sell it again......... Sure, let's hold our breathe until then.
The fact is I'm not stealing from them what they don't have / aren't selling , and in that case I may actually be working for them by indirectly promoting , for free, a product they have walked away from and aren't promoting.

There are quite a few OOP items which, if I could find decent recasts of them, I would certainly buy them.

Necromunda Redemptionists 1st edition for example. You won't find them even on Ebay, not for any price , and certainly not from GW.

I'd ammend what I said to say that, if they won't sell it to you, I have no problem with you getting it elsewhere.

I don't see why not

 jasper76 wrote:
I thought this post said "Would you play against someone who is using racist models."

Yeah I saw a White Scars bikes gang go to battle with a Salamanders squadron because Vulkan Hestan called Kahn a cracker ass honkey

STOP racially incited violence in the year 40,000